A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
A very good analysis. But shouldn't we just stick to simple partisanship?
The Mandelson story appears to be running out of steam. Those who want to use it to destroy Sir Keir need to act quickly, or he goes on and on.
The documentation will provide longer term damage. Probably well beyond Skyr and Morgan
I’m sure Starmer made an error of judgement. Why so convinced at this stage it’s fatal? We won’t get anything from “ The documentation” for weeks and months, even then it may show Mandelson proper grilled, lots of good questions, and lied through the lot of them, showing Starmer as at least being honest about his mistake, and reliable in his version of events.
Whatever we think of Starmer, and listening to him drone on today I thought he’s rubbish. But a liar?
When going for a mortgage, Mandelson was asked if he had any other debts or loans, and didn’t bother mentioning a £400,000 one. A similar shower of lies from Mandelson will get Starmer out of too much lasting damage from this mistake.
Because worse will come out about Epstein and friends and engulf everyone and everything around it. And the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own in any case and he ignored it
“was enough”
you sure the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough? Because No one really said and made much fuss with that information in the public domain, at the time of appointment did they?
Armed with what you say is enough, Conservative media and backbenchers actually spoke in favour of the appointment, Conservative Front bench did not pile in to attack it, or warn everyone, Which itself is very odd from something that attacks every single decision made and calls for resignations over next to nothing every ten minutes.
Kemi literally quoted a journalist at PMQs yesterday, proving she certainly knew as much as the PM at the time, but what did she actually do with that, at the time?
Most of the fuss yesterday was Starmer obviously knew much more than us, because Security Services told him. that’s now all but given up on - it’s become “ the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own” even though that’s not really what everyone else made of it all at the time of appointment, did they?
Do you see my point?
There is a very clear whataboutery point with many journalists and MPs not wanting attention drawn to what they said at the time.
We don't at the moment know what Starmer knew or ought to have known by asking for it given that mandelson had extremely bad form in various respects. Wait and see.
But the big point you miss is that being PM means that in decisions like this you are ultimately both alone and accountable. The buck didn't stop with compliant journalists or opposition politicians. They all have the luxury of unaccountable powerlessness.
The PM is accountable for wrong decisions even if everyone thought it was right at the time, firstly because he has the unique power to get at facts and find out, and secondly because he has to think things through to an extent no-one else has to. That is what the Number 1 PM position is. It's tough. No-one has to do it. But you can never rely, unlike the rest of us, on whataboutery.
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
My wife's from the North West, too. Her accent and use of words wasn't what gave me ' little trills of excitement early in our courting'!
We met online - for reasons, we exchanged a good quarter of a million words before we encountered each other physically. Words were all I had!
The Mandelson story appears to be running out of steam. Those who want to use it to destroy Sir Keir need to act quickly, or he goes on and on.
The documentation will provide longer term damage. Probably well beyond Skyr and Morgan
I’m sure Starmer made an error of judgement. Why so convinced at this stage it’s fatal? We won’t get anything from “ The documentation” for weeks and months, even then it may show Mandelson proper grilled, lots of good questions, and lied through the lot of them, showing Starmer as at least being honest about his mistake, and reliable in his version of events.
Whatever we think of Starmer, and listening to him drone on today I thought he’s rubbish. But a liar?
When going for a mortgage, Mandelson was asked if he had any other debts or loans, and didn’t bother mentioning a £400,000 one. A similar shower of lies from Mandelson will get Starmer out of too much lasting damage from this mistake.
Because worse will come out about Epstein and friends and engulf everyone and everything around it. And the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own in any case and he ignored it
“was enough”
you sure the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough? Because No one really said and made much fuss with that information in the public domain, at the time of appointment did they?
Armed with what you say is enough, Conservative media and backbenchers actually spoke in favour of the appointment, Conservative Front bench did not pile in to attack it, or warn everyone, Which itself is very odd from something that attacks every single decision made and calls for resignations over next to nothing every ten minutes.
Kemi literally quoted a journalist at PMQs yesterday, proving she certainly knew as much as the PM at the time, but what did she actually do with that, at the time?
Most of the fuss yesterday was Starmer obviously knew much more than us, because Security Services told him. that’s now all but given up on - it’s become “ the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own” even though that’s not really what everyone else made of it all at the time of appointment, did they?
Do you see my point?
There is a very clear whataboutery point with many journalists and MPs not wanting attention drawn to what they said at the time.
We don't at the moment know what Starmer knew or ought to have known by asking for it given that mandelson had extremely bad form in various respects. Wait and see.
But the big point you miss is that being PM means that in decisions like this you are ultimately both alone and accountable. The buck didn't stop with compliant journalists or opposition politicians. They all have the luxury of unaccountable powerlessness.
The PM is accountable for wrong decisions even if everyone thought it was right at the time, firstly because he has the unique power to get at facts and find out, and secondly because he has to think things through to an extent no-one else has to. That is what the Number 1 PM position is. It's tough. No-one has to do it. But you can never rely, unlike the rest of us, on whataboutery.
Yeah. But. What about leader of opposition, Newspaper editors, well in fact everyone on earth accept Starmer and PBs Moon Rabbit, now need to be known as Captain Hindsight?
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
A very good analysis. But shouldn't we just stick to simple partisanship?
I’ll put it like this. One consistency from 1960s to 2024, remarkable considering everything that has been involved, like ethnic cleansing, lots of US toadying, has been how UK Government and HM Opposition have always been solidly on the same page on Chagos. Until 2024, where the UK opposition have put themselves as the outlier in strong opposition to the positions of not just the UK and the US governments, but Indian government, Legal Opinion on resettlements, and a place that bizarrely ignores the security and military lock in, that’s always been the driver in the Chagos deal with the US. Equally bizarrely, in a sign how having a vibrant Populist rival on the UK right is now reshaping UK Conservatism towards Populism, and ruining the party, HM opposition are now in opposition to their own position when only recently in power, and upon which they negotiated and agreed the frameworks of this new Chagos deal: that weakening UK relations with African countries and around the Indian Ocean, have actually been creating opportunities that China and Russia have seized upon, being the real world realpolitik here - when UK, and US, fails to convince nations we are a trusted partner, that respects agreements, it helps Russia and China to be able to do so. Without doubt in my mind, Badenoch’s HM Opposition have exchanged strong Conservative positions for Populist ones.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
If it's Labour (-5) then Labour might feel that letting it drag on until March would just do more damage and make it harder to bounce back.
Find Out Now today will be post the news dominating but straddling PMQs etc, Opinium Saturday should be mostly post, next weeks YG (Tues) and MiC (Weds) will be fully after everything sinks in
My guess would be it'll make little difference. i can't see a lot to be angry about. No one likesTrump or knows what a British Ambassador does. If the problem is Starmer's judgement then they are hardly likely to seek refuge in Farage and his New Tories
Probably. Might kill off the mini revival Labour were on though.
It'll do more than that.
I still remain shocked that Farage's Trump/ Putin adjacency gains little negative traction.
That's because at least the Putin adjacency is mostly bollocks made up by his opponents. He said some slightly nice things about Putin in the era 15 years ago, when that was what everyone was doing, hoping to bring Russia in from the cold, and he (a least in every interview I've heard, and I've listened to several) takes a line on Ukraine that's a bit more hard headed than currently fashionable (essentially asking "is dragging this out interminably in anyone's best interests"), but he consistently condemns Putin's aggression.
NATHAN GILL!
Is not Farage, and Farage dropped him like a stone when it all came out.
Again, if you listen to what Farage actually says (as opposed to the stuff his opponents claim he says), he freely admits that anyone trying to build a political movement will have unpleasant and undesirable people join. It's impossible to avoid it. The test is what is done about it, when these people are found out (assuming it's not things which should have easily come out in vetting) - and Farage invariably slings them out.
The other parties all have their own collection of crooks, cranks and racists within their membership, and even elected office (particularly at council level). It's unavoidable. The difference is actually that they are often not nearly as quick as Reform to dispense with them when they are uncovered, nor yet does it tend to attract much than a few column inches on the local press when they do, whereas for Reform it's usually national news as journalists what to try and create a narrative.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
The Mandelson story appears to be running out of steam. Those who want to use it to destroy Sir Keir need to act quickly, or he goes on and on.
The documentation will provide longer term damage. Probably well beyond Skyr and Morgan
I’m sure Starmer made an error of judgement. Why so convinced at this stage it’s fatal? We won’t get anything from “ The documentation” for weeks and months, even then it may show Mandelson proper grilled, lots of good questions, and lied through the lot of them, showing Starmer as at least being honest about his mistake, and reliable in his version of events.
Whatever we think of Starmer, and listening to him drone on today I thought he’s rubbish. But a liar?
When going for a mortgage, Mandelson was asked if he had any other debts or loans, and didn’t bother mentioning a £400,000 one. A similar shower of lies from Mandelson will get Starmer out of too much lasting damage from this mistake.
Because worse will come out about Epstein and friends and engulf everyone and everything around it. And the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own in any case and he ignored it
“was enough”
you sure the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough? Because No one really said and made much fuss with that information in the public domain, at the time of appointment did they?
Armed with what you say is enough, Conservative media and backbenchers actually spoke in favour of the appointment, Conservative Front bench did not pile in to attack it, or warn everyone, Which itself is very odd from something that attacks every single decision made and calls for resignations over next to nothing every ten minutes.
Kemi literally quoted a journalist at PMQs yesterday, proving she certainly knew as much as the PM at the time, but what did she actually do with that, at the time?
Most of the fuss yesterday was Starmer obviously knew much more than us, because Security Services told him. that’s now all but given up on - it’s become “ the information in the public domain before the appointment was enough on its own” even though that’s not really what everyone else made of it all at the time of appointment, did they?
Do you see my point?
There is a very clear whataboutery point with many journalists and MPs not wanting attention drawn to what they said at the time.
We don't at the moment know what Starmer knew or ought to have known by asking for it given that mandelson had extremely bad form in various respects. Wait and see.
But the big point you miss is that being PM means that in decisions like this you are ultimately both alone and accountable. The buck didn't stop with compliant journalists or opposition politicians. They all have the luxury of unaccountable powerlessness.
The PM is accountable for wrong decisions even if everyone thought it was right at the time, firstly because he has the unique power to get at facts and find out, and secondly because he has to think things through to an extent no-one else has to. That is what the Number 1 PM position is. It's tough. No-one has to do it. But you can never rely, unlike the rest of us, on whataboutery.
Yeah. But. What about leader of opposition, Newspaper editors, well in fact everyone on earth accept Starmer and PBs Moon Rabbit, now need to be known as Captain Hindsight?
Good point, well made. I think Private Eye had thoughts at the time. No doubt others too. For myself, I seem to recall that at the time it seemed brave but if I thought at all would assume that the PM and company have done due diligence and were sure about this.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
Trump
APPROVES deal
Says he's convinced it is the BEST that can be done.
Let's get it signed and move on
Win for Starmer Win for Labour
Utterly embarrassing for Nigel and Kemi and their backstabbing
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
I can't see past Angie Baby.
Rayner is vulnerable to collateral damage if one of the minor parties attacks Starmer by drawing parallels between cheques and freebies from Epstein to Mandelson, and gifts to Keir Starmer personally. Kemi can't do it because of the number of Tory donors who have ended up in the Lords, but it is something to watch before putting the rent money on Ange.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
Trump
APPROVES deal
Says he's convinced it is the BEST that can be done.
Let's get it signed and move on
Win for Starmer Win for Labour
Utterly embarrassing for Nigel and Kemi and their backstabbing
Trump
Sky reporting Trump has agreed relunctantly and said
'I retain the right to millitary secure the US presence'
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
1) Whoever wins the next Labour leadership election
2) Pretty easily, given Labour have a stonking majority, and the alternative to voting confidence in the chosen next Labour leader is effectively voting for a GE - aka Christmas time for most of Labour's turkeys.
If I was Badenoch, I'd be tempted to call for a confidence vote now. The government has to give it, and I'm sure Labour MPs will love trooping through the lobbies to express their confidence in Starmer whilst the Tories laugh at them, then get to remind them of it when Starmer finally goes in a few weeks time.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
1) Whoever wins the next Labour leadership election
2) Pretty easily, given Labour have a stonking majority, and the alternative to voting confidence in the chosen next Labour leader is effectively voting for a GE - aka Christmas time for most of Labour's turkeys.
If I was Badenoch, I'd be tempted to call for a confidence vote now. The government has to give it, and I'm sure Labour MPs will love trooping through the lobbies to express their confidence in Starmer whilst the Tories laugh at them, then get to remind them of it when Starmer finally goes in a few weeks time.
Both Badenoch and Davey have today called for a confidence vote
Isn't that fairly close to his approval rating before the latest Mandy saga kicked off? He was certainly well under water, and presumably most of those who disapprove of his performance think he'd be best gone.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
I can't see past Angie Baby.
Gove on LBC has just set out why there’s no suitable replacement, so he’s predicting Starmer will stick around for some time to come. I’ve cashed in my lay of a 2026 departure and, despite Gove making some sensible points, aren’t inclined to rebet on that just yet.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
Isn't that fairly close to his approval rating before the latest Mandy saga kicked off? He was certainly well under water, and presumably most of those who disapprove of his performance think he'd be best gone.
Ipsos last week was 15% approval 77% disapproval [-62]
I suspect they have a more realistic view of the prospective replacements than Labour insiders, who will always champion whoever is prominent within their own faction?
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
1) Whoever wins the next Labour leadership election
2) Pretty easily, given Labour have a stonking majority, and the alternative to voting confidence in the chosen next Labour leader is effectively voting for a GE - aka Christmas time for most of Labour's turkeys.
If I was Badenoch, I'd be tempted to call for a confidence vote now. The government has to give it, and I'm sure Labour MPs will love trooping through the lobbies to express their confidence in Starmer whilst the Tories laugh at them, then get to remind them of it when Starmer finally goes in a few weeks time.
Both Badenoch and Davey have today called for a confidence vote
If one is called, I trust PB will run a lead linking to the no confidence debate that led to the election of 1979. It will be up on YouTube somewhere. If you want a graphic example of how politics has changed during the lifetimes of we more senior PB’ers, there’s no better way to spend a few hours than listening to that outstanding Commons debate.
But Lib Dems here continue to deny they are the government's biggest backers as I've pointed out over and over again. Even Labour voters hate them but the quisling Lib Dems ever so happy to lick the boots of the left would rather sink with the ship than admit the government is worse than the last one.
Clearly the unpopular negative policies of the government have cut through more than the positives, exacerbated by the u turns. Even the one positive of significance, the minimum wage rise, has come with the cost of lost jobs
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
Do you think Chagos Bill will fail to pass a commons vote? Lab + Lib Dem easy win?
Perhaps Lab backbench MPs will be rather less trusting of this deal than they were 18 months ago?
The more lefty and anti Starmer they are, the more they likely like the idea of voting for surrendering British Empire.
Lib dems and Labour back benchers could put in troublesome amendments around resettling more Chagouns, but the Tories couldn’t support those as it would be in opposite direction from Badenoch’s position.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
1) Whoever wins the next Labour leadership election
2) Pretty easily, given Labour have a stonking majority, and the alternative to voting confidence in the chosen next Labour leader is effectively voting for a GE - aka Christmas time for most of Labour's turkeys.
If I was Badenoch, I'd be tempted to call for a confidence vote now. The government has to give it, and I'm sure Labour MPs will love trooping through the lobbies to express their confidence in Starmer whilst the Tories laugh at them, then get to remind them of it when Starmer finally goes in a few weeks time.
Both Badenoch and Davey have today called for a confidence vote
If one is called, I trust PB will run a lead linking to the no confidence debate that led to the election of 1979. It will be up on YouTube somewhere. If you want a graphic example of how politics has changed during the lifetimes of we more senior PB’ers, there’s no better way to spend a few hours than listening to that outstanding Commons debate.
Gesture politics
You might get 20 hardcore left vote with them.
Easy expel them
It won't bring a GE
What it will do is embloden Labour MPs to decide, WE hold the power and the timing not a pair of gesture posturing chancers
Anyway, my evening's entertainment is watching Bitcoin slowly, but also quite quickly, collapse in real time.
A lot of people are 'worth' a hell of a lot less than they thought they were 4 months ago.
It's a very interesting moment.
I have no direct exposure to crypto, nor would I ever have, but the spillover of BC=0 might be significant. My very long term view is that these are valueless things, but I've been wrong on the very long term so far, and really entirely expect to continue to be wrong.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Sickening isn’t it. Just like we were discussing late last evening, the US have rewritten the deal so they can exploit the environment, and hide behind the excuse it’s about security. 🤮
Off topic, intentionally. (I thought this photograph, which I took in December 2024, might cool the discussions here.)
For one thing, it is another example of a long-term conservation success:
By the early twentieth century breeding trumpeter swans were nearly extirpated in the United States, with a remnant population of fewer than 70 wild trumpeters in remote hot springs in or near Yellowstone National Park. Surprising news came from a 1950s aerial survey of Alaska's Copper River when several thousand trumpeters were discovered.[6] This population provided critical genetic stock to complement the tri-state (Montana/Idaho/Wyoming) population for re-introductions in other parts of the swan's historic range.
And the behavior of adult males and females is an example we can learn from.
(Details: The photograph was taken on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, which is more or less in the middle of the greater Seattle area, population approximately 4 million.
There was a second adult in the group, which was far enough away so that I did not include it when I took the picture.
Last December I saw a family with three juveniles. I suspect the adults were the same ones I had seen in 2024.)
One remaining act of public service that Mandleson could now perform, would be to reveal publicly the dirt that he undoubtedly has on the bunch of crooks currently running the USA. It would be a fitting gesture by him, on the way to being accommodated at His Majesty’s pleasure.
“Keir Starmer's former political director Luke Sullivan says he thinks the PM is "fighting for his premiership". Sullivan tells Newscast: "I don't think you can understate how serious the situation and the peril is that the prime minister finds himself in."”
But Lib Dems here continue to deny they are the government's biggest backers as I've pointed out over and over again. Even Labour voters hate them but the quisling Lib Dems ever so happy to lick the boots of the left would rather sink with the ship than admit the government is worse than the last one.
A lot of the Lib Dem identifying voters are the Labour voters they inherited in 2024 to 'GET THE TORIES OUT' and have hung about
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Sickening isn’t it. Just like we were discussing late last evening, the US have rewritten the deal so they can exploit the environment, and hide behind the excuse it’s about security. 🤮
Apparently he does not like the leasehold but then isn't that the same as Greenland ?
This is not the endorsement some think it is
He is saying he will have his way irrespective of the treaty, which is Trump modus operandi
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
Because neither US or India will take ownership.
India technically will now, via their proxy. UK will pay rent.
In 1967 UK bought Chagos, not the US, they would rather we got our hands dirty with everything that came next! In Chagos UK has always been Wormtongue to US Saruman!
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
Do you think Chagos Bill will fail to pass a commons vote? Lab + Lib Dem easy win?
Perhaps Lab backbench MPs will be rather less trusting of this deal than they were 18 months ago?
The more lefty and anti Starmer they are, the more they likely like the idea of voting for surrendering British Empire.
Lib dems and Labour back benchers could put in troublesome amendments around resettling more Chagouns, but the Tories couldn’t support those as it would be in opposite direction from Badenoch’s position.
I think the Tories are trying to kill it fir this parliamentary term with a wrecking amendment in the Lords if not to ping pong it beyond with amendments
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
Where does it say "Lots of people etc"?
"I understand that the deal Prime Minister Starmer has made, according to many, the best he could make."
In other words - lots of people are claiming it's the best Starmer could have got, but I would have done better.
Only four more posting of the FoN poll until we hit the mandatory six.
It might bugger up the PB predictions competition if I exclude Find Out Now from the competition.
147 respondents from the Postcode Lottery list, or whatever it was, might turn out to be a very, very accurate methodology.
If they were all in the same postcode it could be a good indicator for town council elections ... unless people on that postcode were all well known not to vote.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Sickening isn’t it. Just like we were discussing late last evening, the US have rewritten the deal so they can exploit the environment, and hide behind the excuse it’s about security. 🤮
Apparently he does not like the leasehold but then isn't that the same as Greenland ?
This is not the endorsement some think it is
He is saying he will have his way irrespective of the treaty, which is Trump modus operandi
Yeah it’s typical Trump.
Last night we discussed how UK has created a beautiful environmental haven, what Trump has done is come back in at last moment and rip up that protection. Why?
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
While I have some sympathy with your view, there are two questions:
a) Who replaces him?
and
b) How do they establish the confidence of the House?
I can't see past Angie Baby.
Gove on LBC has just set out why there’s no suitable replacement, so he’s predicting Starmer will stick around for some time to come. I’ve cashed in my lay of a 2026 departure and, despite Gove making some sensible points, aren’t inclined to rebet on that just yet.
Michael Gove knows sod all about politics imo. He is almost as bad as Keir Starmer. Look at his time as EdSec, his 10-minute leadership run, his endorsement of Peter Mandelson.
Gangs use AI to clone pensioners’ voices and empty their bank accounts Fraudsters use audio clips from spurious phone surveys to set up fake direct debits https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/f9cd55c90364e30e (gift link so no paywall)
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
Trump
APPROVES deal
Says he's convinced it is the BEST that can be done.
Let's get it signed and move on
Win for Starmer Win for Labour
Utterly embarrassing for Nigel and Kemi and their backstabbing
Trump
Sky reporting Trump has agreed relunctantly and said
'I retain the right to millitary secure the US presence'
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
Surprised there could be any misunderstanding. I've never known anyone refer to mushy peas as peas.
Trump: "Mike Johnson is a very religious person. He does not hide it. He'll say to me sometimes at lunch, 'Sir, may we pray.' I'll say, 'Excuse me? We're having lunch.'"
And you point is...?
Trump has a particular way of communicating with his religious supporters.
Yep. The projected vibe there (it's quite deliberate) is John Walton. A respect for the Christian religion tempered by a gentle amusement at some of its more devout practices. It simultaneously positions Mike Johnson as Liv and thus emasculates him. It's clever. Say what you like about him, Trump knows how to do this comms stuff.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
Surprised there could be any misunderstanding. I've never known anyone refer to mushy peas as peas.
Do you get the option of petit pois at northern fish and chip shops?
Otherwise, I'd imagine they just ask for peas, and get mushy ones
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
Do you think Chagos Bill will fail to pass a commons vote? Lab + Lib Dem easy win?
Perhaps Lab backbench MPs will be rather less trusting of this deal than they were 18 months ago?
The more lefty and anti Starmer they are, the more they likely like the idea of voting for surrendering British Empire.
Lib dems and Labour back benchers could put in troublesome amendments around resettling more Chagouns, but the Tories couldn’t support those as it would be in opposite direction from Badenoch’s position.
I think the Tories are trying to kill it fir this parliamentary term with a wrecking amendment in the Lords if not to ping pong it beyond with amendments
The Tory behaviour on this has been embarrassing, hasn’t it? Opportunistic as soon as thrown out of power. They used it against each other at first, in the party’s own leadership election!
Does anyone know how it gets ratified in the US. Just a wet signature from Trump, or a vote in Senate or both houses first?
legally what is it actually to do with US? 🤷♀️ Which points to exactly what’s wrong with all this. Technically UK becomes renter of a flat we used to own, and we will be allowing the US to kip on the sofa as the landlord doesn’t mind.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
I suspect they have a more realistic view of the prospective replacements than Labour insiders, who will always champion whoever is prominent within their own faction?
My guess is the Reform voters are so thick they don't realise he'll be replaced by another Labour leader
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
Do you think Chagos Bill will fail to pass a commons vote? Lab + Lib Dem easy win?
Perhaps Lab backbench MPs will be rather less trusting of this deal than they were 18 months ago?
The more lefty and anti Starmer they are, the more they likely like the idea of voting for surrendering British Empire.
Lib dems and Labour back benchers could put in troublesome amendments around resettling more Chagouns, but the Tories couldn’t support those as it would be in opposite direction from Badenoch’s position.
I think the Tories are trying to kill it fir this parliamentary term with a wrecking amendment in the Lords if not to ping pong it beyond with amendments
The Tory behaviour on this has been embarrassing, hasn’t it? Opportunistic as soon as thrown out of power. They used it against each other at first, in the party’s own leadership election!
Does anyone know how it gets ratified in the US. Just a wet signature from Trump, or a vote in Senate or both houses first?
legally what is it actually to do with US? 🤷♀️ Which points to exactly what’s wrong with all this. Technically UK becomes renter of a flat we used to own, and we will be allowing the US to kip on the sofa as the landlord doesn’t mind.
The US use of Diego Garcia is subject to a treaty with the UK which precedes the UK Mauritius treaty so our legal obligations to the US have precedence in international law. The US will need to agree to amend the treaty witn us in whatever formal way that is done there
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
Surprised there could be any misunderstanding. I've never known anyone refer to mushy peas as peas.
No no, cross purposes. She likes 'peas' as in normal garden peas, boiled from raw or frozen, but doesn't like 'mushy peas', as in what you have with trad fish and chips, esp from a fish and chip shop. I found the 1st thing out almost straightaway but the 2nd only after we were married.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
The operative phrase here is 'constructive talks' That isn't Starmer convincing Trump how great his whizzbang deal is, that is concessions, probably financial ones, being chucked to Trump to secure this lukewarm acquiescence.
An ammendment should be put down that explicitly forbids Starmer to benefit directly or indirectly from any funding by the Mauritian Government.
More 2024 Labour voters think Starmer should stay than resign though as do 2024 LDs, it is 2024 Tories and 2024 Reform voters who massively want the PM to go, 66% and 83% respectively.
A plurality of Greens want Starmer to go, though 27% want him to stay, so Greens are ironically closest to the UK average on booting Sir Keir out
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum
More 2024 Labour voters think Starmer should stay than resign though as do 2024 LDs, it is 2024 Tories and 2024 Reform voters who massively want the PM to go, 66% and 83% respectively.
A plurality of Greens want Starmer to go, though 27% want him to stay, so Greens are ironically closest to the UK average on booting Sir Keir out
To put it in context could you imagine 37% of conservatives wanted their PM to resign
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
Surprised there could be any misunderstanding. I've never known anyone refer to mushy peas as peas.
No no, cross purposes. She likes 'peas' as in normal garden peas, boiled from raw or frozen, but doesn't like 'mushy peas', as in what you have with trad fish and chips, esp from a fish and chip shop. I found the 1st thing out almost straightaway but the 2nd only after we were married.
To be fair to TSE, the polling all says "18 Months", and the dates on the polling all refer to January.
It is therefore fair to say it is a snapshot from last month, when the Starmer government was 18 months old.
Can we stop bickering now?
Point of order, TSE (before I heroically and selflessly pointed out his mistake) wrote this in the final paragraph:
Today is the eighteenth month anniversary of Sir Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister
Which is, shall we say, inaccurate.
And also, as Blanche has already pointed out, horrible English.
Nah, the OED has said the common usage of anniversary has meant in no longer means annual.
For example, in relationship, tomorrow is our third month anniversary.
*shudder* Words like violence. Who would inflict a sentence like that on the world's ears when 'tomorrow marks three months since the start of our relationship' is available?
I know but what I can say most of the women I have fallen in love with are from the North West, I want the relationship to continue, I can’t tell people from Salford their language and grammar sucks.
I remember the little trill.of excitement early in my courting of my wife when she used the words 'fewer' and 'whom' correctly. This was the one.
(She is from the NW, by the way!)
These little things are important. When I started dating my girlfriend now wife I was pleased to find that she liked peas. But not, it later transpired, mushy peas. By the time this came to light it was too late - we were already married.
Surprised there could be any misunderstanding. I've never known anyone refer to mushy peas as peas.
No no, cross purposes. She likes 'peas' as in normal garden peas, boiled from raw or frozen, but doesn't like 'mushy peas', as in what you have with trad fish and chips, esp from a fish and chip shop. I found the 1st thing out almost straightaway but the 2nd only after we were married.
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum
Right OK, glad we got that straightened out.
It’s good we are back on the same page. 🙂
Cameron never put a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating. Cameron presided over rounds of negotiating right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives in all. Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty. It was basically done, two months later it was on Biden’s desk.
Which makes the Conservative Party position now all the more bizarre. When this truth is more widely known, all the Conservatives can say is - we didn’t sign anything! We did not surrender the Chagos!
What was actually going on under Cameron’s time as Foreign Sec, a general election was coming and transferring sovereignty for a lease, and allowing return of Chagossians, was going to be a difficult sell - hence, certainly with the tacit approval of the US and India, carry on negotiating rather than walk away from negotiation table {in eyes of world}, but tactically slow the negotiations down, so it becomes a matter for other side of the election.
In negotiating reality, the deal we have today, or something almost like this, could have been signed by the UK government in 2023. Cameron may have rowed back the agreed bit of plan for resettlement, but he didn’t rip up the planned lease back, he bequeathed it to the next government still in the plan.
You have all the freedom to say you don’t believe a word of this account, because this sounds so outlandish - the Conservative Party certainly don’t explain it like I do for sure. Apart from me, who does?
But if you want to to say - as someone said yesterday - my argument is not coherent, just a collection of tangential to irrelevant facts and suppositions, you have to take that up with my resources, referencing across all them gave me the insight. Here are some links, starting with an actual written statement in Parliament, and finishing with exactly where it’s at today.
Anyway, my evening's entertainment is watching Bitcoin slowly, but also quite quickly, collapse in real time.
A lot of people are 'worth' a hell of a lot less than they thought they were 4 months ago.
It's a very interesting moment.
I have no direct exposure to crypto, nor would I ever have, but the spillover of BC=0 might be significant. My very long term view is that these are valueless things, but I've been wrong on the very long term so far, and really entirely expect to continue to be wrong.
Crypto as a whole should never be completely valueless - it's great for niche use cases of various forms of illegality.
(Illegality doesn't have to be a bad thing. Even if you are one of the 90% of the population who incorrectly thinks drugs should remain illegal, do you fell the same way about gambling? Evading elite-favouring currency controls? Getting assets out of a despotic regime? Rewarding intelligence assets?)
That doesn't necessarily mean that bitcoin has to have a value, but so much of the crypto universe is tied up with it that it's the best equivalent to gold atm.
I am not saying buy it at anything like these prices... bottom pickers get smelly fingers and all that... but there is a price that I would (highly speculatively) - probably around 10k and averaging down...
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Trump has just made a statement on Chagos
Awaiting detail
He seems to be backing the deal.
Pretty damming with faint praise "Lots of people think this is the best deal Starmer could get, I'm pretty sure I would have done better".
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
The operative phrase here is 'constructive talks' That isn't Starmer convincing Trump how great his whizzbang deal is, that is concessions, probably financial ones, being chucked to Trump to secure this lukewarm acquiescence.
An ammendment should be put down that explicitly forbids Starmer to benefit directly or indirectly from any funding by the Mauritian Government.
Starmer’s latest Chagos surrender maybe financial. But Trump name checks environment not in the way of security. He can now dredge the ocean floor for precious metals?
More 2024 Labour voters think Starmer should stay than resign though as do 2024 LDs, it is 2024 Tories and 2024 Reform voters who massively want the PM to go, 66% and 83% respectively.
A plurality of Greens want Starmer to go, though 27% want him to stay, so Greens are ironically closest to the UK average on booting Sir Keir out
To put it in context could you imagine 37% of conservatives wanted their PM to resign
A good way to hole Starmer below the high tide line if it went ahead?
How many holed below the waterline events does one Prime Minister need to experience before he sinks?
I think he needs to go now.
One interesting snippet from my Chagos research. One example of what happened under the Conservative 14 years in power, exploring and negotiating the inherent problems in the Chagos situation throughout those 14 years, the resettlement of Chagossians had finally been agreed in 2023 in the 11 rounds of top level negotiations the Conservative Party had negotiating this deal, but in January 2024 UK went back on that agreement. This manoeuvre in January 2024 from Cameron is interesting - because Cameron had, what they call in cop shows, “previous” on blocking return of Chagossians.
In a key earlier attempt to keep this dispute out of the international courts, Prime Minister Cameron purchased an independent report if return of Chagossians was feasible and could be done. The report said yes, return of Chagossians is feasible. But the moment Cameron decided in 2016 not to go further with this, is the moment it created certainty of UK being taken into the courts.
Although surrender of sovereignty stands out as most controversial in the deal, the arguments around the of return of Chagossians has played a crucial role over more than half a century, in getting us to where it is today. And on this particular element of it all, I’m not at all convinced it’s all over.
Right, so after some 'research' you now acknowledge that Cameron parked the deal, which is exactly what I said happened - a statement that you were posting infantile rolleyes smilies about earlier.
No. Cameron’s DID NOT PARK THE DEAL. Quite the opposite.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum
Right OK, glad we got that straightened out.
Spot on Moon Rabbit
Dear old Kemi needs a lesson on facts and to apologise for her lies. As does her shadow foreign secretary.
Where can you get this stuff? I need to... compete in a ski jumping competition
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
Comments
We don't at the moment know what Starmer knew or ought to have known by asking for it given that mandelson had extremely bad form in various respects. Wait and see.
But the big point you miss is that being PM means that in decisions like this you are ultimately both alone and accountable. The buck didn't stop with compliant journalists or opposition politicians. They all have the luxury of unaccountable powerlessness.
The PM is accountable for wrong decisions even if everyone thought it was right at the time, firstly because he has the unique power to get at facts and find out, and secondly because he has to think things through to an extent no-one else has to. That is what the Number 1 PM position is. It's tough. No-one has to do it. But you can never rely, unlike the rest of us, on whataboutery.
Without doubt in my mind, Badenoch’s HM Opposition have exchanged strong Conservative positions for Populist ones.
Awaiting detail
Again, if you listen to what Farage actually says (as opposed to the stuff his opponents claim he says), he freely admits that anyone trying to build a political movement will have unpleasant and undesirable people join. It's impossible to avoid it. The test is what is done about it, when these people are found out (assuming it's not things which should have easily come out in vetting) - and Farage invariably slings them out.
The other parties all have their own collection of crooks, cranks and racists within their membership, and even elected office (particularly at council level). It's unavoidable. The difference is actually that they are often not nearly as quick as Reform to dispense with them when they are uncovered, nor yet does it tend to attract much than a few column inches on the local press when they do, whereas for Reform it's usually national news as journalists what to try and create a narrative.
APPROVES deal
Says he's convinced it is the BEST that can be done.
Let's get it signed and move on
Win for Starmer
Win for Labour
Utterly embarrassing for Nigel and Kemi and their backstabbing
A lot of people are 'worth' a hell of a lot less than they thought they were 4 months ago.
50/24% Starmer should resign
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2019444581150957921
Cork man Morgan McSweeney is embroiled in a scandal over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US
https://bsky.app/profile/news.rte.ie/post/3me4xe6uzp22w
Trump
Sky reporting Trump has agreed relunctantly and said
'I retain the right to millitary secure the US presence'
2) Pretty easily, given Labour have a stonking majority, and the alternative to voting confidence in the chosen next Labour leader is effectively voting for a GE - aka Christmas time for most of Labour's turkeys.
If I was Badenoch, I'd be tempted to call for a confidence vote now. The government has to give it, and I'm sure Labour MPs will love trooping through the lobbies to express their confidence in Starmer whilst the Tories laugh at them, then get to remind them of it when Starmer finally goes in a few weeks time.
You try, and it would completely crash the price.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/czej70jyg4eo
Who knew a few cms made such a difference!
I still don't understand why we haven't just gift wrapped the lot of it and give it to the US. Let Trump have the pleasure of the enlargement of US territory, and make the diplomatic problem entirely some elses.
Lib dems and Labour back benchers could put in troublesome amendments around resettling more Chagouns, but the Tories couldn’t support those as it would be in opposite direction from Badenoch’s position.
You might get 20 hardcore left vote with them.
Easy expel them
It won't bring a GE
What it will do is embloden Labour MPs to decide, WE hold the power and the timing not a pair of gesture posturing chancers
I have no direct exposure to crypto, nor would I ever have, but the spillover of BC=0 might be significant. My very long term view is that these are valueless things, but I've been wrong on the very long term so far, and really entirely expect to continue to be wrong.
https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/25825515.jeffrey-epstein-files-linked-isle-wight-mansion-sale/
For one thing, it is another example of a long-term conservation success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpeter_swan
And the behavior of adult males and females is an example we can learn from.
(Details: The photograph was taken on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, which is more or less in the middle of the greater Seattle area, population approximately 4 million.
There was a second adult in the group, which was far enough away so that I did not include it when I took the picture.
Last December I saw a family with three juveniles. I suspect the adults were the same ones I had seen in 2024.)
“Keir Starmer's former political director Luke Sullivan says he thinks the PM is "fighting for his premiership".
Sullivan tells Newscast: "I don't think you can understate how serious the situation and the peril is that the prime minister finds himself in."”
Doesn’t he mean overstate?
This is not the endorsement some think it is
He is saying he will have his way irrespective of the treaty, which is Trump modus operandi
India technically will now, via their proxy. UK will pay rent.
In 1967 UK bought Chagos, not the US, they would rather we got our hands dirty with everything that came next! In Chagos UK has always been Wormtongue to US Saruman!
Baffled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/s/rkYNef3JKP
In other words - lots of people are claiming it's the best Starmer could have got, but I would have done better.
Last night we discussed how UK has created a beautiful environmental haven, what Trump has done is come back in at last moment and rip up that protection. Why?
Fraudsters use audio clips from spurious phone surveys to set up fake direct debits
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/f9cd55c90364e30e (gift link so no paywall)
Another reason not to take part in phone polls.
He'll stop aping Modi and start aping Carney which could be the best thing that's happened to him
Otherwise, I'd imagine they just ask for peas, and get mushy ones
Does anyone know how it gets ratified in the US. Just a wet signature from Trump, or a vote in Senate or both houses first?
legally what is it actually to do with US? 🤷♀️ Which points to exactly what’s wrong with all this. Technically UK becomes renter of a flat we used to own, and we will be allowing the US to kip on the sofa as the landlord doesn’t mind.
He’s done
There was never a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating, there was a slowing of momentum on reaching a deal before General Election, but rounds of negotiating actually carried on right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives leaving so much of the deal we see today already agreed, so much plan and agreement already in place, the incoming government only needed two further rounds of talks before everything was settled by 3rd Oct 2024.
Apart from issue of resettlement, that had been agreed, but in 2024 Cameron ripped that agreement up. I don’t know if the chapter was simply un-ripped up, or re-negotiated final deal.
The key bit of my argument, an agreement ceding Chagos sovereignty in exchange for a long-term lease of the military base, this was an agreed part of the plan the incoming UK government INHERITED.
Until you prove me wrong, Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty.
An ammendment should be put down that explicitly forbids Starmer to benefit directly or indirectly from any funding by the Mauritian Government.
A plurality of Greens want Starmer to go, though 27% want him to stay, so Greens are ironically closest to the UK average on booting Sir Keir out
Right OK, glad we got that straightened out.
Cameron never put a freeze on negotiating, never a pause on negotiating. Cameron presided over rounds of negotiating right up to the 2024 General Election, 11 rounds under the Conservatives in all. Labour inherited a plan agreed from the 11 rounds of negotiation under the Conservatives, for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia after ceding sovereignty. What Labour inherited was called Established "Plan A": containing and describing the agreement for a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia while ceding sovereignty. It was basically done, two months later it was on Biden’s desk.
Which makes the Conservative Party position now all the more bizarre. When this truth is more widely known, all the Conservatives can say is - we didn’t sign anything! We did not surrender the Chagos!
What was actually going on under Cameron’s time as Foreign Sec, a general election was coming and transferring sovereignty for a lease, and allowing return of Chagossians, was going to be a difficult sell - hence, certainly with the tacit approval of the US and India, carry on negotiating rather than walk away from negotiation table {in eyes of world}, but tactically slow the negotiations down, so it becomes a matter for other side of the election.
In negotiating reality, the deal we have today, or something almost like this, could have been signed by the UK government in 2023. Cameron may have rowed back the agreed bit of plan for resettlement, but he didn’t rip up the planned lease back, he bequeathed it to the next government still in the plan.
You have all the freedom to say you don’t believe a word of this account, because this sounds so outlandish - the Conservative Party certainly don’t explain it like I do for sure. Apart from me, who does?
But if you want to to say - as someone said yesterday - my argument is not coherent, just a collection of tangential to irrelevant facts and suppositions, you have to take that up with my resources, referencing across all them gave me the insight. Here are some links, starting with an actual written statement in Parliament, and finishing with exactly where it’s at today.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-11-03/hcws354
https://lexpress.mu/s/what-camerons-u-turn-on-resettlement-means-531313
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/10/uk-must-focus-how-chagos-decision-implemented-gain-its-benefits-and-minimize-risks
https://politicsuk.com/news/the-chagos-deal-a-factual-breakdown/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/uk-ratification-chagos-archipelago-treaty-will-not-violate-international-law
(Illegality doesn't have to be a bad thing. Even if you are one of the 90% of the population who incorrectly thinks drugs should remain illegal, do you fell the same way about gambling? Evading elite-favouring currency controls? Getting assets out of a despotic regime? Rewarding intelligence assets?)
That doesn't necessarily mean that bitcoin has to have a value, but so much of the crypto universe is tied up with it that it's the best equivalent to gold atm.
I am not saying buy it at anything like these prices... bottom pickers get smelly fingers and all that... but there is a price that I would (highly speculatively) - probably around 10k and averaging down...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTyUni8dbkE
The Keir Starmer who was DPP would never have appointed Mandelson
Dear old Kemi needs a lesson on facts and to apologise for her lies. As does her shadow foreign secretary.
Durham not Newcastle
Turns out there's a curryhouse in Dudley called the Major Curry Affair
https://majorcurryaffair.co.uk/
Actually Tipton, Burntwood and Lichfield
I love that
The World Anti-Doping Agency could investigate if evidence emerges that male ski jumpers are injecting their penises in a bid to improve sporting performance.
In January, German newspaper Bild, external reported that jumpers were injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid before being measured for their suits.
Hyaluronic acid, which is not banned in sport, can be used to increase penis circumference by one or two centimetres.
This would increase the surface area of their suits during competition, which, according to FIS, the international ski and snowboard federation, could increase their flight in the air.
"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If your suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping men's race director Sandro Pertile.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/czej70jyg4eo