Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
That's your logic, not mine. It ought to be obvious what the point is. If we've decided now it was a huge mistake to appoint him (it was), that also should have been clear a year ago.
I've no issue with those who said it was a mistake back then. It's the ones who enthusiastically supported the appointment, and are now saying it was an act of great turpitude.
The vetting *in this case* shouldn't have really changed that judgment.
I think that there is a middle case - those who held their noses a bit and *assumed* that the full vetting for the Ambassadors job would be done. And *assumed* that Mandy's "I'm innocent, because I'm gay" explanation covered the issue.
I thought the appointment was a mistake, at the time.
Another thing that wasn't in the public domain was the political angle - Mandy was known to be indiscreet in the face of wealth.
But the revelation that he'd been systematically handing over information from the very heart of government, within minutes of receiving it was new. As was the recipe of money by him and his SO from Epstein. As was him giving advice on how to force the hand, on policy, of the government of which he was a part
The cherry on top was the derogatory attitude towards his colleagues.
I think this revelation was the straw that broke the political dimension of this so thoroughly - Mandy, in the views of just about everyone, betrayed the government, the Labour party and the national interest. Which is why there is not political support left to slow down or redact embarrassing information.
That's a good point well made, Malmesbury.
I can remember being mildly surprised by the appointment but assumed there must be some good reason for making it. SKS needs to make any such reason perfectly clear now, if he can. He also needs to explain why normal vetting procedures failed, if indeed they did.
Of course it's possible the answers to these questions won't bear the light of day, in which case he's stuffed.
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
All this talk of what the security services knew, JP Morgan secret internal reports or what Labour politicians like Starmer knew, but am I losing my mind? Didn't anyone with a passing interest in UK politics know that Epstein maintained a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson well before 2019 let alone 2025 when he was appointed ambassador, with the support of not just the PM but much of the Tory press and commentariat?
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
I can't, to be honest, imagine Trump turning up to a meeting and being taken remotely seriously. If the meeting was between Trump and Kermit the Frog, I'd be looking to Kermit for the serious stuff. (Yes, I watched the new Muppet Show last night.)
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
It does if you have an aged aunt who has finally got rid of her McCarthy and Stone flat in Wokingham after it being empty for over 2 years.
I would say we’ve covered it multiple times here as I’ve continually pointed out that the flat my parents bought buys it back at the amount they paid when they die.
Reality is most people pay well over the odds when they purchase a brand new retirement home and then discover the utter lack of demand when they sell.
Were this Reddit the answer would be the price is too high
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
The equal argument would be the utter shits how Badenoch would be.
Granted she is a pin up girl of Antipidean Farmers for giving them an agricultural trade agreement that they are still mssturbsting over, her arrogance and ego and argumentative tendencies would be a disaster when diplomacy is key
Add in the disgraced Mossad Agent the MP for Witham and Tel Aviv and it's crystal clear that the UK would be globally ridiculed by a Tory Government
That deal eliminated most tariffs on goods like cars, Scotch whisky, and fashion from the UK to Australia and also boosted UK services and digital trade. Australian beef and lamb are still just 1% of the UK meat market
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
Becoming an MP, Minister and then Deputy PM is enough of an achievement for anyone, let alone someone from a disadvantaged background. She doesn't need to have personally enriched herself or gone to the right University to feel proud of that achievement.
Wait, so HMRC are working out if she owes them money or not? I thought it was an individual's responsibility to pay the correct tax.
If she has leadership ambitions, why is she quibbling. Simply pay the tax.
Not correct. The way tax law works, is you either owe it or you don't. No need to pay it if you are in dispute as there are appeals to FTT and UTT if you are so inclined.
Would you be so enthusiastic to pay money to HMRC if you didn't think you owed it? Why encourage others.
WRT Rayner as next PM - which in principle is not the worst idea - I feel that in the end and after a lot of huffing and puffing the MPs will decide that the winner just has to be someone who is vanishingly unlikely to have stuff in their life history that will emerge to hinder or destroy them.
Rayner is no sort of bad person I am sure. But as with Zahawi and his careless overlooking of the £5,000,000 he owed the HMRC, the lack of clear legal cover and lack of consultation with HMRC over the stamp duty thing means that a red light flashes about judgment and competence. This is sadly a disqualification. Being squeaky clean, and how you approach ensuring you are are equally important.
As to betting on next Labour leader - which really is a Novices' Hurdle not a Derby - a guess is that the winner has to be: squeaky clean, a woman, serious, with decent political antennae, good at narrative which makes words mean something.
Might Cooper be value?
The mist impressive Cooper to be a Party Leader is IMHO the very underrated Daisy
Ed D needs to step aside
Davey won the highest number of Liberal MPs for 100 years in 2024 and is still polling at that level, Cooper is a complete lightweight and there is no reason at all for him to stand aside
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
The equal argument would be the utter shits how Badenoch would be.
Granted she is a pin up girl of Antipidean Farmers for giving them an agricultural trade agreement that they are still mssturbsting over, her arrogance and ego and argumentative tendencies would be a disaster when diplomacy is key
Add in the disgraced Mossad Agent the MP for Witham and Tel Aviv and it's crystal clear that the UK would be globally ridiculed by a Tory Government
You are a very bitter person. It must be getting pretty nasty in the bunker
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
You're entitled to your opinion.
However, in electoral terms, the opinions on the choice of potential Labour leaders that matter are from those who might consider voting Labour at the next general election.
As a potential PM, Streeting is viewed more favourably than some of the other candidates by those who would never contemplate voting for Labour in 2029 whatever the leader, but their views don't really matter in electoral terms.
Streeting has a -25% favourable rating, significantly higher than Rayner's -38% amongst UK voters overall.
Wait, so HMRC are working out if she owes them money or not? I thought it was an individual's responsibility to pay the correct tax.
If she has leadership ambitions, why is she quibbling. Simply pay the tax.
Not correct. The way tax law works, is you either owe it or you don't. No need to pay it if you are in dispute as there are appeals to FTT and UTT if you are so inclined.
Would you be so enthusiastic to pay money to HMRC if you didn't think you owed it? Why encourage others.
WRT Rayner as next PM - which in principle is not the worst idea - I feel that in the end and after a lot of huffing and puffing the MPs will decide that the winner just has to be someone who is vanishingly unlikely to have stuff in their life history that will emerge to hinder or destroy them.
Rayner is no sort of bad person I am sure. But as with Zahawi and his careless overlooking of the £5,000,000 he owed the HMRC, the lack of clear legal cover and lack of consultation with HMRC over the stamp duty thing means that a red light flashes about judgment and competence. This is sadly a disqualification. Being squeaky clean, and how you approach ensuring you are are equally important.
As to betting on next Labour leader - which really is a Novices' Hurdle not a Derby - a guess is that the winner has to be: squeaky clean, a woman, serious, with decent political antennae, good at narrative which makes words mean something.
Might Cooper be value?
The mist impressive Cooper to be a Party Leader is IMHO the very underrated Daisy
Ed D needs to step aside
Davey won the highest number of Liberal MPs for 100 years in 2024 and is still polling at that level, Cooper is a complete lightweight and there is no reason at all for him to stand aside
Cooper is by no stretch of the imagination impressive.
What will be the reaction of the remaining few non-insane Trumpers to this? Free speech innit, just your smelly, old relative’s spicy sense of humour or as is now mostly the case, stare fixedly in the opposite direction and pretend it doesn’t exist?
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
What stands out from a succession of spy scandals is the different standards of vetting for the likes of me and thee rather than those with a proper background. You and I might find ourselves disqualified for having an uncle who was once done for drunk and disorderly, whereas the likes of Peter Mandelson would be waved through despite the obvious red flags.
The journalist and author Ben McIntyre is particular hot on this. It's certainly true that unless things have changed a lot since the days of Philby and Blunt there really is no point in vetting anyone. The Mandelson fiasco does suggest that things haven't changed that much.
And we are back to the #NU10K - in the Goode Olde Days* Philby wasn't vetted properly because he was a Good Chap.
Now we don't vet, because they are Proper People.
If we can manage to have a register for struck off NHS Managers, perhaps we can enforce vetting on all government appointments above a certain level.
If the PM wants to hire X, he gets a fat file on X. Complete with the list of concerns. The PM can initial next to each concern, that he has seen it and it's all fine.
*Which weren't
Oh, you have to read McIntyre to appreciate just how much of an old boys network it was. If you went to the right school you just walked straight into a top position, no questions asked. It was a class thing. I don't know if it still is. The Mandelson thing would suggest so.
Growing belief amongst some of the more sensible unblinkered Lobby Journalists that McSweeney was leaving post in March, before locals to return to HQ role for locals and beyond.
New CoS already chosen, reported by Sky and Guardian.
Suspect he'll go after half term period a few days early.
Bigger issue emerging is the battle between the Met Pol and CPS and Speaker of the House and how battle lines draw up.
Met Police very much playing standard legal procedure of vital not to possibly contaminate evidence in to public domain.
Speaker saying Parliament can overrule.
My questions are this
Is a Committee deemed to be watertight safe in terms of non disclosure. You can imagine pressure rabid tight Press will put on Members?
As importantly how do likes of Badenoch, Davey, SNP play this. They should be very very cautious not to have the arrogance to believe that they are above the Law. I would imagine some Tory grandees like Davis, Grieve etc will be very hostile if Kamikaze Kemi who always knows best sidles up for a fight with the Met.
Farage coincidentally is playing more of a waiting game, whether that's due to his links to Epstein or legally prudent or both will be interesting to watch.
On topic. It may suit Ange and Starmer, who I and many think her and Hillier intervened to protect on Wednesday if Hmrc don't publish for a few months early June after locals may be ideal for them.
There are plenty on opposition benches who have far greater hmrc and more politically based skeletons in their cupboards than ange.
Interesting and not at all clear cut what happens next
Btw
Clevedon Labour hold in County and area Tories should be winning back seats in a crushing blow and clear sign Tories are in deep deep electoral dooh
As you say while the MP for Witham sits proudly next to Kemi she doesn't have a leg to stand on
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
What stands out from a succession of spy scandals is the different standards of vetting for the likes of me and thee rather than those with a proper background. You and I might find ourselves disqualified for having an uncle who was once done for drunk and disorderly, whereas the likes of Peter Mandelson would be waved through despite the obvious red flags.
The journalist and author Ben McIntyre is particular hot on this. It's certainly true that unless things have changed a lot since the days of Philby and Blunt there really is no point in vetting anyone. The Mandelson fiasco does suggest that things haven't changed that much.
And we are back to the #NU10K - in the Goode Olde Days* Philby wasn't vetted properly because he was a Good Chap.
Now we don't vet, because they are Proper People.
If we can manage to have a register for struck off NHS Managers, perhaps we can enforce vetting on all government appointments above a certain level.
If the PM wants to hire X, he gets a fat file on X. Complete with the list of concerns. The PM can initial next to each concern, that he has seen it and it's all fine.
*Which weren't
Oh, you have to read McIntyre to appreciate just how much of an old boys network it was. If you went to the right school you just walked straight into a top position, no questions asked. It was a class thing. I don't know if it still is. The Mandelson thing would suggest so.
Mandelson went to a grammar school, not even a minor public school let alone a major one.
Though he did go to Oxford, albeit a newer college
As I said when writing the thread of just over a week ago, it's in Rayner's interests to go long on the timing of the challenge to Starmer so that the HMRC business can be put behind her. The one more likely to initiate an early challenge is therefore Streeting. But if Streeting jumps I'm sure that Rayner will follow.
The betting value a week back was with Rayner and Miliband, which has been born out by market movements since, meaning that that value has been eroded and is less obvious now. Rayner then 6/1 best odds, now 3/1. Miliband was 20/1, now 8/1. Streeting best odds still 4/1 (Oddschecker, next PM.)
If Labour consider Reform to be their biggest challengers, Rayner may be the better option as she is such a contrast to Farage. However, as we have seen with Reeves, Badenoch will neuter any attempts to use her sex as a weapon, and the same will go for vlass status, so it may not work as well in that match up
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
What stands out from a succession of spy scandals is the different standards of vetting for the likes of me and thee rather than those with a proper background. You and I might find ourselves disqualified for having an uncle who was once done for drunk and disorderly, whereas the likes of Peter Mandelson would be waved through despite the obvious red flags.
The journalist and author Ben McIntyre is particular hot on this. It's certainly true that unless things have changed a lot since the days of Philby and Blunt there really is no point in vetting anyone. The Mandelson fiasco does suggest that things haven't changed that much.
And we are back to the #NU10K - in the Goode Olde Days* Philby wasn't vetted properly because he was a Good Chap.
Now we don't vet, because they are Proper People.
If we can manage to have a register for struck off NHS Managers, perhaps we can enforce vetting on all government appointments above a certain level.
If the PM wants to hire X, he gets a fat file on X. Complete with the list of concerns. The PM can initial next to each concern, that he has seen it and it's all fine.
*Which weren't
Oh, you have to read McIntyre to appreciate just how much of an old boys network it was. If you went to the right school you just walked straight into a top position, no questions asked. It was a class thing. I don't know if it still is. The Mandelson thing would suggest so.
Mandelson went to a grammar school, not even a minor public school let alone a major one.
Though he did go to Oxford, albeit a newer college
Apart from the hilarity of GB News not having its finger on the faltering pulse of the zeitgeist, that vividly painted pantomime dame is Anne Diamond! After the recent Jan Leaming brouhaha, what the hell is going on with our female newsreaders? Can we expect the fragrant Anna Ford to pop up in the Epstein files?
Maybe not Anna Ford but we will clearly find out who killed Jill Dando and why.
As I said when writing the thread of just over a week ago, it's in Rayner's interests to go long on the timing of the challenge to Starmer so that the HMRC business can be put behind her. The one more likely to initiate an early challenge is therefore Streeting. But if Streeting jumps I'm sure that Rayner will follow.
The betting value a week back was with Rayner and Miliband, which has been born out by market movements since, meaning that that value has been eroded and is less obvious now. Rayner then 6/1 best odds, now 3/1. Miliband was 20/1, now 8/1. Streeting best odds still 4/1 (Oddschecker, next PM.)
In two months time the tax is no longer due as her son will be 18. So that would point to just after the locals.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
Becoming an MP, Minister and then Deputy PM is enough of an achievement for anyone, let alone someone from a disadvantaged background. She doesn't need to have personally enriched herself or gone to the right University to feel proud of that achievement.
She got there mainly by being Starmer's envoy to the traditional working class and unions, much like Prescott was for Blair
If Labour consider Reform to be their biggest challengers, Rayner may be the better option as she is such a contrast to Farage. However, as we have seen with Reeves, Badenoch will neuter any attempts to use her sex as a weapon, and the same will go for vlass status, so it may not work as well in that match up
The biggest winners from a Rayner Labour leadership would be the Tories and LDs
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
Indeed. We would expect MI5 and MI6 to read the Guardian and the FT but we would expect them to go just that little bit further, with all their public and secret powers to hack into stuff, listen to phone calls, read our emails and collate intelligence from the world.
It's a bit like appointing Ian Huntley to be a school caretaker. You discover (under the modern system) that he has no convictions but keeps being investigated for relevant stuff. The red lights flashing inform the depth of your further research and your decision making. With PM, you know, being men of the world, that bad people do multiple bad things in addition to the ones you have found out, so let's make sure.
After Ian Huntley, the formal vetting process was introduced for such posts.
To make it an offence to appoint someone to work in such a role, without the full & *completed* vetting.
So, every school caretaker, every teacher gets a CRB check (not to mention the enhanced version). My relative, who runs a building company, does a CRB check on his workers - they are in and out of people's houses, after all. Taxi drivers in London get an enhanced CRB.
Would Mandy have passed an enhanced CRB?
EDIT: emails are close to public domain. The security services (in every country) have been recording them for many, many years. A dig in that database would have been simple and easy. Was it done?
As an aside, Huntley was caretaker of a completely different school from the one attended by Holly and Jessica. Still, something must be done.
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
The equal argument would be the utter shits how Badenoch would be.
Granted she is a pin up girl of Antipidean Farmers for giving them an agricultural trade agreement that they are still mssturbsting over, her arrogance and ego and argumentative tendencies would be a disaster when diplomacy is key
Add in the disgraced Mossad Agent the MP for Witham and Tel Aviv and it's crystal clear that the UK would be globally ridiculed by a Tory Government
You are a very bitter person. It must be getting pretty nasty in the bunker
You need Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] 2 WLR 1593. i.e. you should read or be advised about any contract that you sign/agree. The terms for these places are quite clear. Family thought they would get £200K. They'll still get a wedge but not as much as they were hoping.
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
What stands out from a succession of spy scandals is the different standards of vetting for the likes of me and thee rather than those with a proper background. You and I might find ourselves disqualified for having an uncle who was once done for drunk and disorderly, whereas the likes of Peter Mandelson would be waved through despite the obvious red flags.
The journalist and author Ben McIntyre is particular hot on this. It's certainly true that unless things have changed a lot since the days of Philby and Blunt there really is no point in vetting anyone. The Mandelson fiasco does suggest that things haven't changed that much.
And we are back to the #NU10K - in the Goode Olde Days* Philby wasn't vetted properly because he was a Good Chap.
Now we don't vet, because they are Proper People.
If we can manage to have a register for struck off NHS Managers, perhaps we can enforce vetting on all government appointments above a certain level.
If the PM wants to hire X, he gets a fat file on X. Complete with the list of concerns. The PM can initial next to each concern, that he has seen it and it's all fine.
*Which weren't
Oh, you have to read McIntyre to appreciate just how much of an old boys network it was. If you went to the right school you just walked straight into a top position, no questions asked. It was a class thing. I don't know if it still is. The Mandelson thing would suggest so.
Mandelson went to a grammar school, not even a minor public school let alone a major one.
Though he did go to Oxford, albeit a newer college
Apart from the hilarity of GB News not having its finger on the faltering pulse of the zeitgeist, that vividly painted pantomime dame is Anne Diamond! After the recent Jan Leaming brouhaha, what the hell is going on with our female newsreaders? Can we expect the fragrant Anna Ford to pop up in the Epstein files?
I was on 1FTS at Linton when a fellow student became horribly, snottily and tearfully maudlin drunk in the Dawnay Arms in the village. We had various electrical contraptions to supplement our meagre junior officers' salaries from the fruit machine in there and were therefore regulars. When we eventually inquired into the source of his Strongbow soaked misery, he sobbed, "ANNE DIAMOND WAS MEANT FOR MY COCK AND MY COCK ALONE!". She had got married earlier that week. For the remainder of his very long and very successful RAF and RNZAF career he was known as "Mr. Diamond". True story.
Good times. Tbf I was a bit like that about Anna Ford, but I kept my upper lip stiff.
On checking Wiki on her current marital status, '(Ford) was briefly engaged in 2000 to former astronaut David Scott, the seventh man to walk on the Moon'. What a gal!
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
The equal argument would be the utter shits how Badenoch would be.
Granted she is a pin up girl of Antipidean Farmers for giving them an agricultural trade agreement that they are still mssturbsting over, her arrogance and ego and argumentative tendencies would be a disaster when diplomacy is key
Add in the disgraced Mossad Agent the MP for Witham and Tel Aviv and it's crystal clear that the UK would be globally ridiculed by a Tory Government
That deal eliminated most tariffs on goods like cars, Scotch whisky, and fashion from the UK to Australia and also boosted UK services and digital trade. Australian beef and lamb are still just 1% of the UK meat market
Name us one deal that she signed as Trade Secretary that was on more favourable terms than the one it replaced?
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
You're entitled to your opinion.
However, in electoral terms, the opinions on the choice of potential Labour leaders that matter are from those who might consider voting Labour at the next general election.
As a potential PM, Streeting is viewed more favourably than some of the other candidates by those who would never contemplate voting for Labour in 2029 whatever the leader, but their views don't really matter in electoral terms.
Streeting has a -25% favourable rating, significantly higher than Rayner's -38% amongst UK voters overall.
Look at the crossbreaks though. My point, which you appear to have missed, is that Streeting's better favourability rating compared to Rayner is solely down to 2024 Conservative voters (like you) and 2024 Reform voters who are with respect never going to vote Labour in 2029 in a month of Sundays. Labour needs to focus on the part of the electorate it has a chance of winning back, which is why using average ratings is in this case misleading.
Apart from that, I think that Rayner has the potential to impress on the upside in office, confounding those who have prematurely formed an opinion on her, whereas Streeting doesn't.
I understand that the council by-election in Ynys Mon, which those of us who'd given it any thought, were under the impression was a nailed on Plaid Cymru hold, has been won by Reform.
What will be the reaction of the remaining few non-insane Trumpers to this? Free speech innit, just your smelly, old relative’s spicy sense of humour or as is now mostly the case, stare fixedly in the opposite direction and pretend it doesn’t exist?
Christ, that's Trump sharing images of the Obamas as monkeys.
The more senile Trump becomes, the more she shows what he is.
That’s grim, even by his standards.
I think, at this point, it's a bit grim to think he has any standards.
He's jumped out of the Overton window. And is wingsuiting to the horizon.
I notice there seems to be a dispute about the genuineness of this. Is there a link to the actual?
Seems unlikely they'd bother to make anything up when there's a surplus of utterly unacceptable Trump posts. If there's a denial it'll be a risibly false wink-wink denial, giving his slightly less rabid supporters something to hide behind while flaunting his untouchable racism to the rabid ones.
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
What stands out from a succession of spy scandals is the different standards of vetting for the likes of me and thee rather than those with a proper background. You and I might find ourselves disqualified for having an uncle who was once done for drunk and disorderly, whereas the likes of Peter Mandelson would be waved through despite the obvious red flags.
The journalist and author Ben McIntyre is particular hot on this. It's certainly true that unless things have changed a lot since the days of Philby and Blunt there really is no point in vetting anyone. The Mandelson fiasco does suggest that things haven't changed that much.
And we are back to the #NU10K - in the Goode Olde Days* Philby wasn't vetted properly because he was a Good Chap.
Now we don't vet, because they are Proper People.
If we can manage to have a register for struck off NHS Managers, perhaps we can enforce vetting on all government appointments above a certain level.
If the PM wants to hire X, he gets a fat file on X. Complete with the list of concerns. The PM can initial next to each concern, that he has seen it and it's all fine.
*Which weren't
Oh, you have to read McIntyre to appreciate just how much of an old boys network it was. If you went to the right school you just walked straight into a top position, no questions asked. It was a class thing. I don't know if it still is. The Mandelson thing would suggest so.
The #NU10K thesis is that the Old Boy Network has been replaced by the New Boys & Girls Network. The rules of which are the same. Oh, different in terms of whose In & whose Out, and the list of Done and Not Done has change. But the rule set behind it hasn't changed.
Note how, at a certain level, the people in Public, Private & Third Sectors have a certain familiarity with to them. Not to mention familial links.
Wait, so HMRC are working out if she owes them money or not? I thought it was an individual's responsibility to pay the correct tax.
If she has leadership ambitions, why is she quibbling. Simply pay the tax.
Not correct. The way tax law works, is you either owe it or you don't. No need to pay it if you are in dispute as there are appeals to FTT and UTT if you are so inclined.
Would you be so enthusiastic to pay money to HMRC if you didn't think you owed it? Why encourage others.
WRT Rayner as next PM - which in principle is not the worst idea - I feel that in the end and after a lot of huffing and puffing the MPs will decide that the winner just has to be someone who is vanishingly unlikely to have stuff in their life history that will emerge to hinder or destroy them.
Rayner is no sort of bad person I am sure. But as with Zahawi and his careless overlooking of the £5,000,000 he owed the HMRC, the lack of clear legal cover and lack of consultation with HMRC over the stamp duty thing means that a red light flashes about judgment and competence. This is sadly a disqualification. Being squeaky clean, and how you approach ensuring you are are equally important.
As to betting on next Labour leader - which really is a Novices' Hurdle not a Derby - a guess is that the winner has to be: squeaky clean, a woman, serious, with decent political antennae, good at narrative which makes words mean something.
Might Cooper be value?
The mist impressive Cooper to be a Party Leader is IMHO the very underrated Daisy
Ed D needs to step aside
Davey won the highest number of Liberal MPs for 100 years in 2024 and is still polling at that level, Cooper is a complete lightweight and there is no reason at all for him to stand aside
Purely down to targeting. Vote share of 12.5% was nothing to write home about despite the Conservative implosion and his failure to improve on that means the LDs are currently the 5th party in most polls.
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
Indeed. We would expect MI5 and MI6 to read the Guardian and the FT but we would expect them to go just that little bit further, with all their public and secret powers to hack into stuff, listen to phone calls, read our emails and collate intelligence from the world.
It's a bit like appointing Ian Huntley to be a school caretaker. You discover (under the modern system) that he has no convictions but keeps being investigated for relevant stuff. The red lights flashing inform the depth of your further research and your decision making. With PM, you know, being men of the world, that bad people do multiple bad things in addition to the ones you have found out, so let's make sure.
After Ian Huntley, the formal vetting process was introduced for such posts.
To make it an offence to appoint someone to work in such a role, without the full & *completed* vetting.
So, every school caretaker, every teacher gets a CRB check (not to mention the enhanced version). My relative, who runs a building company, does a CRB check on his workers - they are in and out of people's houses, after all. Taxi drivers in London get an enhanced CRB.
Would Mandy have passed an enhanced CRB?
EDIT: emails are close to public domain. The security services (in every country) have been recording them for many, many years. A dig in that database would have been simple and easy. Was it done?
As an aside, Huntley was caretaker of a completely different school from the one attended by Holly and Jessica. Still, something must be done.
It was reasonable to argue that he shouldn't have been in that post. And that being in that post gave him access to other schools on the "he's in the trade" basis.
Growing belief amongst some of the more sensible unblinkered Lobby Journalists that McSweeney was leaving post in March, before locals to return to HQ role for locals and beyond.
New CoS already chosen, reported by Sky and Guardian.
Suspect he'll go after half term period a few days early.
Bigger issue emerging is the battle between the Met Pol and CPS and Speaker of the House and how battle lines draw up.
Met Police very much playing standard legal procedure of vital not to possibly contaminate evidence in to public domain.
Speaker saying Parliament can overrule.
My questions are this
Is a Committee deemed to be watertight safe in terms of non disclosure. You can imagine pressure rabid tight Press will put on Members?
As importantly how do likes of Badenoch, Davey, SNP play this. They should be very very cautious not to have the arrogance to believe that they are above the Law. I would imagine some Tory grandees like Davis, Grieve etc will be very hostile if Kamikaze Kemi who always knows best sidles up for a fight with the Met.
Farage coincidentally is playing more of a waiting game, whether that's due to his links to Epstein or legally prudent or both will be interesting to watch.
On topic. It may suit Ange and Starmer, who I and many think her and Hillier intervened to protect on Wednesday if Hmrc don't publish for a few months early June after locals may be ideal for them.
There are plenty on opposition benches who have far greater hmrc and more politically based skeletons in their cupboards than ange.
Interesting and not at all clear cut what happens next
Btw
Clevedon Labour hold in County and area Tories should be winning back seats in a crushing blow and clear sign Tories are in deep deep electoral dooh
As you say while the MP for Witham sits proudly next to Kemi she doesn't have a leg to stand on
If she's sitting, she doesn't need legs to stand on, at that point in time....
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
Economics 101. Back in the real world, the story tells us buyers must be over 70 and pay £11,000 a year in service charges. What does that Venn diagram look like?
I've bought a few things from Pandora in the distant past, charms for a bracelet for a friend. Suspect shifting to platinum plating won't see prices decline...
What will be the reaction of the remaining few non-insane Trumpers to this? Free speech innit, just your smelly, old relative’s spicy sense of humour or as is now mostly the case, stare fixedly in the opposite direction and pretend it doesn’t exist?
Wait, so HMRC are working out if she owes them money or not? I thought it was an individual's responsibility to pay the correct tax.
If she has leadership ambitions, why is she quibbling. Simply pay the tax.
Not correct. The way tax law works, is you either owe it or you don't. No need to pay it if you are in dispute as there are appeals to FTT and UTT if you are so inclined.
Would you be so enthusiastic to pay money to HMRC if you didn't think you owed it? Why encourage others.
WRT Rayner as next PM - which in principle is not the worst idea - I feel that in the end and after a lot of huffing and puffing the MPs will decide that the winner just has to be someone who is vanishingly unlikely to have stuff in their life history that will emerge to hinder or destroy them.
Rayner is no sort of bad person I am sure. But as with Zahawi and his careless overlooking of the £5,000,000 he owed the HMRC, the lack of clear legal cover and lack of consultation with HMRC over the stamp duty thing means that a red light flashes about judgment and competence. This is sadly a disqualification. Being squeaky clean, and how you approach ensuring you are are equally important.
As to betting on next Labour leader - which really is a Novices' Hurdle not a Derby - a guess is that the winner has to be: squeaky clean, a woman, serious, with decent political antennae, good at narrative which makes words mean something.
Might Cooper be value?
The mist impressive Cooper to be a Party Leader is IMHO the very underrated Daisy
Ed D needs to step aside
Davey won the highest number of Liberal MPs for 100 years in 2024 and is still polling at that level, Cooper is a complete lightweight and there is no reason at all for him to stand aside
Purely down to targeting. Vote share of 12.5% was nothing to write home about despite the Conservative implosion and his failure to improve on that means the LDs are currently the 5th party in most polls.
Well as leader he was responsible for approving the targeting.
Nowcast currently has the LDs projected 77 MPs in a hung parliament so up a further 5 MPs from 2024 and massively ahead of the Greens who are projected a mere 18 MPs and if Labour did get back in it would only be with LD confidence and supply now https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast#google_vignette
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
I understand that the council by-election in Ynys Mon, which those of us who'd given it any thought, were under the impression was a nailed on Plaid Cymru hold, has been won by Reform.
Morning OKC (and all) Yeah, very impresive Reform win in the Holyhead area and a surprise Lab hold (just) in Somerset. 3 very interesting ones next week Tuesday in Fishguard on the Ceredigion/Pembroke border - Plaid on paper but Reform in with a shout again maybe and unknown indies in the mix and what happend to the residual Tory Pembroke vote? (Fishguard hardly Tory central though) Thursday Worth Valley in Keighley and ilkley that the Tories really need to hold if they arent in freefall and Lab defence in Fletton on the border between Peterborough and NW Cambs which should be a fascinating three wsy fight Lab, Con, Ref - Paul Bristow the Tory mayor has been doorstepping hoping to grab this one but Ref will be strong
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
You're entitled to your opinion.
However, in electoral terms, the opinions on the choice of potential Labour leaders that matter are from those who might consider voting Labour at the next general election.
As a potential PM, Streeting is viewed more favourably than some of the other candidates by those who would never contemplate voting for Labour in 2029 whatever the leader, but their views don't really matter in electoral terms.
Streeting has a -25% favourable rating, significantly higher than Rayner's -38% amongst UK voters overall.
Look at the crossbreaks though. My point, which you appear to have missed, is that Streeting's better favourability rating compared to Rayner is solely down to 2024 Conservative voters (like you) and 2024 Reform voters who are with respect never going to vote Labour in 2029 in a month of Sundays. Labour needs to focus on the part of the electorate it has a chance of winning back, which is why using average ratings is in this case misleading.
Apart from that, I think that Rayner has the potential to impress on the upside in office, confounding those who have prematurely formed an opinion on her, whereas Streeting doesn't.
As I said Burnham does better with Labour 2024 voters than Rayner. Rayner's poor rating with Tory and Reform voters also means there would be more tactical voting against a Labour Party led by her, she also does worse with 2024 LD voters than Streeting on a net favourable basis.
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
You're entitled to your opinion.
However, in electoral terms, the opinions on the choice of potential Labour leaders that matter are from those who might consider voting Labour at the next general election.
As a potential PM, Streeting is viewed more favourably than some of the other candidates by those who would never contemplate voting for Labour in 2029 whatever the leader, but their views don't really matter in electoral terms.
Streeting has a -25% favourable rating, significantly higher than Rayner's -38% amongst UK voters overall.
Look at the crossbreaks though. My point, which you appear to have missed, is that Streeting's better favourability rating compared to Rayner is solely down to 2024 Conservative voters (like you) and 2024 Reform voters who are with respect never going to vote Labour in 2029 in a month of Sundays. Labour needs to focus on the part of the electorate it has a chance of winning back, which is why using average ratings is in this case misleading.
Apart from that, I think that Rayner has the potential to impress on the upside in office, confounding those who have prematurely formed an opinion on her, whereas Streeting doesn't.
As I said Burnham does better with Labour 2024 voters than Rayner. Rayner's poor rating with Tory and Reform voters also means there would be more tactical voting against a Labour Party led by her, she also does worse with 2024 LD voters than Streeting.
Rayner would be a tax and spend Labour Truss
That's an oxymoron because being a Truss is doing the spending without the taxation.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Boris Johnson's personal and financial affairs were chaotic but I don't recall you fretting that he wasn't taken seriously by the big strong men of this world.
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
Indeed. We would expect MI5 and MI6 to read the Guardian and the FT but we would expect them to go just that little bit further, with all their public and secret powers to hack into stuff, listen to phone calls, read our emails and collate intelligence from the world.
It's a bit like appointing Ian Huntley to be a school caretaker. You discover (under the modern system) that he has no convictions but keeps being investigated for relevant stuff. The red lights flashing inform the depth of your further research and your decision making. With PM, you know, being men of the world, that bad people do multiple bad things in addition to the ones you have found out, so let's make sure.
After Ian Huntley, the formal vetting process was introduced for such posts.
To make it an offence to appoint someone to work in such a role, without the full & *completed* vetting.
So, every school caretaker, every teacher gets a CRB check (not to mention the enhanced version). My relative, who runs a building company, does a CRB check on his workers - they are in and out of people's houses, after all. Taxi drivers in London get an enhanced CRB.
Would Mandy have passed an enhanced CRB?
EDIT: emails are close to public domain. The security services (in every country) have been recording them for many, many years. A dig in that database would have been simple and easy. Was it done?
As an aside, Huntley was caretaker of a completely different school from the one attended by Holly and Jessica. Still, something must be done.
It was reasonable to argue that he shouldn't have been in that post. And that being in that post gave him access to other schools on the "he's in the trade" basis.
Huntley being a caretaker had nothing to do with the murders of Holly and Jessica. His partner, Maxine Carr, was a teaching assistant at the girls' school and it is likely these things got mixed up in the popular understanding. (Indeed, a quick google finds at least one press report that gets it wrong.)
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
Economics 101. Back in the real world, the story tells us buyers must be over 70 and pay £11,000 a year in service charges. What does that Venn diagram look like?
That intersection is going to be small and get smaller as younger people retire with smaller defined contribution pensions
Exactly what information was the vetting supposed to reveal ? Certainly not the cabinet leaks, since no one knew about that until now.
The relationship itself was common knowledge, and it's utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. A fair percentage of those now baying for Starmer's blood waxed lyrical over the appointment at the time (the Mail's Hodge, for example).
The Epstein file release didn't substantially alter what we knew:
He was questioned about his links with the billionaire paedophile in an interview with the Financial Times as he prepares to become Britain’s ambassador to Washington. However, he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he did not want to discuss it.
Lord Mandelson said: “I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell.
“I regret even more the hurt he caused to many young women.
“I’m not going to go into this. It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”
The pair’s connections have raised questions since a 2019 internal report on Epstein by JP Morgan bank was filed to a New York court.
It found Epstein appeared to “maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of British government”...
Is that not the whole idea of vetting though? To find out the extent of any concerns and whether or not there is more to be concerned about, which you were not aware of.
Why even bother with vetting by your logic?
Indeed. We would expect MI5 and MI6 to read the Guardian and the FT but we would expect them to go just that little bit further, with all their public and secret powers to hack into stuff, listen to phone calls, read our emails and collate intelligence from the world.
It's a bit like appointing Ian Huntley to be a school caretaker. You discover (under the modern system) that he has no convictions but keeps being investigated for relevant stuff. The red lights flashing inform the depth of your further research and your decision making. With PM, you know, being men of the world, that bad people do multiple bad things in addition to the ones you have found out, so let's make sure.
After Ian Huntley, the formal vetting process was introduced for such posts.
To make it an offence to appoint someone to work in such a role, without the full & *completed* vetting.
So, every school caretaker, every teacher gets a CRB check (not to mention the enhanced version). My relative, who runs a building company, does a CRB check on his workers - they are in and out of people's houses, after all. Taxi drivers in London get an enhanced CRB.
Would Mandy have passed an enhanced CRB?
EDIT: emails are close to public domain. The security services (in every country) have been recording them for many, many years. A dig in that database would have been simple and easy. Was it done?
As an aside, Huntley was caretaker of a completely different school from the one attended by Holly and Jessica. Still, something must be done.
Indeed, his employment as a school caretaker at another school was completely coincidental in the Southam crimes. He met the girls in the capacity of boyfriend of a Teaching Assistant. Even the most zealous don't suggest that we DBS anyone dating someone who works at a school.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Whatever problems with have in this country I'm still confident that if Starmer has posted an explicitly racist video about Badenoch, or Sunak, in the early hours of this morning that he would be out of his job by lunchtime.
There's three more years of this absurd situation to go. God help us all.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Boris Johnson's personal and financial affairs were chaotic but I don't recall you fretting that he wasn't taken seriously by the big strong men of this world.
And when we get to Trumps finances and personal life...
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
She’s done jobs I would never do, not even if you paid me £3,000 per hour.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
I understand that the council by-election in Ynys Mon, which those of us who'd given it any thought, were under the impression was a nailed on Plaid Cymru hold, has been won by Reform.
Not only won but from 0 to near 43.9% and Plaid 2nd on just 25%
This is despite Nathan Gill lanquishing in jail
And on those in labour claiming success in Cleveden they lost 25.4% of their vote with Reform just 1.3 behind
Whatever problems with have in this country I'm still confident that if Starmer has posted an explicitly racist video about Badenoch, or Sunak, in the early hours of this morning that he would be out of his job by lunchtime.
There's three more years of this absurd situation to go. God help us all.
I don't think he would last till lunchtime. If a PM did that in the middle of the night, they'd be waking up the Cabinet to get rid of him before breakfast.
Tories on the skids. Maybe like me not a fan of the self regarding Baddenoch
Tory vote pretty much static from 2024 GE Roger and in line with all the other Holyrood Polling. So more their general post Truss malaise, not Kemi specific
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
Isn't "Did your parents read to you when you were a tiny tot?" a very strong indicator of where you'll end up?
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
Isn't "Did your parents read to you when you were a tiny tot?" a very strong indicator of where you'll end up?
Something like "Eighty percent of a child's intelligence is decided by four and a half" was printed in the front inside cover of some series of books. Ladybirds?
Pretty close to Yougov, again the main swing even at Holyrood to Reform who now look like being the main party of opposition in Scotland to the SNP who are also down on 2021 overall like the Tories and Labour
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
No it isn't, there are plenty of people who had more difficult circumstances than she did who managed to get qualifications and a degree.
Streeting in particular had a similar background to hers but got himself to Cambridge
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
Worldly wise is a better description.
That resonates with 80% plus of the population that politicians on all sides tend to talk over.
There is actually a better example of worldly wise made good sat on the Labour front bench and doing an excellent job
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Pretty close to Yougov, again the main swing even at Holyrood to Reform who now look like being the main party of opposition in Scotland to the SNP who are also down on 2021 overall like the Tories and Labour
Interedtimg question us ehere Reforms votes are coming from - not 2024 Tories (12.7%) to any great extent. Non voters? SLab? SNP?
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
She didn't even just fail to get a degree, she failed to even get GCSEs!
Pretty close to Yougov, again the main swing even at Holyrood to Reform who now look like being the main party of opposition in Scotland to the SNP who are also down on 2021 overall like the Tories and Labour
Interedtimg question us ehere Reforms votes are coming from - not 2024 Tories (12.7%) to any great extent. Non voters? SLab? SNP?
2021 SNP and 2021 Tories and 2024 Labour voters mainly
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
I would just say so what
You seem to think the only way to succeed is to go to University which is nonsense
Indeed, maybe we would be better with street wise, practical and honest people, then some of those governing us
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
Economics 101. Back in the real world, the story tells us buyers must be over 70 and pay £11,000 a year in service charges. What does that Venn diagram look like?
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
No it isn't, there are plenty of people who had more difficult circumstances than she did who managed to get qualifications and a degree.
Streeting in particular had a similar background to hers but got himself to Cambridge
Unless you're suggesting Streeting was pregnant at 16... but he is very impressive too. Just not quite as remarkable.
F1: may be foolish, but laid Merc for the title at 2.2. Even if their engine's allowed, McLaren are going to make it rough for them, maybe even Williams. If the engine gets borked then Ferrari and Red Bull could come into the picture.
Yes, Rayner's tax affairs may ultimately end any potential leadership bid by her. Which is why I make Streeting now likeliest to succeed Starmer if and when he goes
There are really no good candidates.
Streeting is probably the best of a not great bunch
I reckon Streeting will disappoint. Don't like the guy - too much weasel DNA I reckon. Not what is needed by a country replacing Starmer.
Well given it is going to have to be a Labour candidate if Streeting went in the next year or 2, if it is a choice between Streeting, Rayner or Ed Miliband to lead the UK on the world stage it is no contest
The equal argument would be the utter shits how Badenoch would be.
Granted she is a pin up girl of Antipidean Farmers for giving them an agricultural trade agreement that they are still mssturbsting over, her arrogance and ego and argumentative tendencies would be a disaster when diplomacy is key
Add in the disgraced Mossad Agent the MP for Witham and Tel Aviv and it's crystal clear that the UK would be globally ridiculed by a Tory Government
That deal eliminated most tariffs on goods like cars, Scotch whisky, and fashion from the UK to Australia and also boosted UK services and digital trade. Australian beef and lamb are still just 1% of the UK meat market
Name us one deal that she signed as Trade Secretary that was on more favourable terms than the one it replaced?
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
I would just say so what
You seem to think the only way to succeed is to go to University which is nonsense
Indeed, maybe we would be better with street wise, practical and honest people, then some of those governing us
She didn't even get some GCSEs and it is hardly as if she was a brilliantly successful street wise self made entrepreneur who started a multi million pound business either
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
No it isn't, there are plenty of people who had more difficult circumstances than she did who managed to get qualifications and a degree.
Streeting in particular had a similar background to hers but got himself to Cambridge
Unless you're suggesting Streeting was pregnant at 16...
Well she didn't have to get pregnant at 16 either did she, she didn't even have to have sex at 16 before marriage and certainly not without protection
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
Doctors did not used to have medical degrees, and until recently did not need them. I can't remember the details but think it was only after the war that most doctors had degrees. More recently, doctors might opt to do the non-degree exams (either LMSSA or the conjoint LRCP MRCS) alongside their medical degrees as a belt-and-braces approach: fail one and you could still qualify via the other. This route was closed under the Blair government iirc.
As an aside for @Flatlander who was talking about the Profumo affair, Dr Stephen Ward, the osteopath, had qualified as a doctor in the United States but his qualification was not recognised by our General Medical Council in the 1960s. America has MD and DO, which Ward had and is a joint (no pun intended) degree in medicine and osteopathy.
Pretty close to Yougov, again the main swing even at Holyrood to Reform who now look like being the main party of opposition in Scotland to the SNP who are also down on 2021 overall like the Tories and Labour
Interedtimg question us ehere Reforms votes are coming from - not 2024 Tories (12.7%) to any great extent. Non voters? SLab? SNP?
2021 SNP and 2021 Tories and 2024 Labour voters mainly
From a STory perspective Very knife edge in the Borders - 11% probably holds on in Berwickshire and perhaps Dumfriesshire but loses D and G where Reform start stronger. Eastwood is going to be very interesting. Has JC got enough personal followimg to hang on? Its not a very ripe Reform area at all
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
Economics 101. Back in the real world, the story tells us buyers must be over 70 and pay £11,000 a year in service charges. What does that Venn diagram look like?
So no-one would buy for one pound?
It’s a continual liability, there would come a point at which even £1 is too much.
There are commercial leases where the current tenant will be happy to pay £x0,000 for someone to take the lease off their hands and that lease will (unlike these leases) have an end date attached to them).
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
No it isn't, there are plenty of people who had more difficult circumstances than she did who managed to get qualifications and a degree.
Streeting in particular had a similar background to hers but got himself to Cambridge
Possessing a degree says little, either about a person’s ability, or their character.
I would not want Rayner as PM, but her ability to rise above the circumstances of her birth is admirable.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
I would just say so what
You seem to think the only way to succeed is to go to University which is nonsense
Indeed, maybe we would be better with street wise, practical and honest people, then some of those governing us
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
Doctors did not used to have medical degrees, and until recently did not need them. I can't remember the details but think it was only after the war that most doctors had degrees. More recently, doctors might opt to do the non-degree exams (either LMSSA or the conjoint LRCP MRCS) alongside their medical degrees as a belt-and-braces approach: fail one and you could still qualify via the other. This route was closed under the Blair government iirc.
As an aside for @Flatlander who was talking about the Profumo affair, Dr Stephen Ward, the osteopath, had qualified as a doctor in the United States but his qualification was not recognised by our General Medical Council in the 1960s. America has MD and DO, which Ward had and is a joint (no pun intended) degree in medicine and osteopathy.
Stephen Ward, an osteopath. Peter Mandelson's husband doing an osteopahty course. I think any future vetting should focus on this obvious warning sign.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
She didn't even just fail to get a degree, she failed to even get GCSEs!
I think she had other things on her plate back then?
But I'm not saying she's smart. I don't think she is particularly smart. Her journey is genuinely impressive. Certainly more so than my born-in-middle-class-household-went-to-nice-school-then-university-got-a-degree-then-a-job-and-became-an-adult-in-a-middle-class-household journey. I genuinely look up to her. But also, I know quite a few people who have gone from backgrounds almost as unpromising as Ange's to comfortable middle-class lives; I'm equally impressed by them, and wouldn't nominate any of them for PM either.
A good journey <> being the best qualified for PM Getting a good degree <> being the best qualified for PM
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Going to university doesn't make you clever, it just gives you qualifications. I have no objection to someone without a degree being PM. In fact I would welcome it. We massively overstate the importance of a degree*. However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
She didn't even just fail to get a degree, she failed to even get GCSEs!
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
Isn't "Did your parents read to you when you were a tiny tot?" a very strong indicator of where you'll end up?
I always worry about houses with no books in them.*
*Although as I mainly read on a Kindle now, there may be some who read lots but don't have physical books.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work
Are you saying Rayner has not worked hard?
Rayner's "journey" is significantly more impressive than both Starmer's and Streeting's, given her personal circumstances.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
Isn't "Did your parents read to you when you were a tiny tot?" a very strong indicator of where you'll end up?
Something like "Eighty percent of a child's intelligence is decided by four and a half" was printed in the front inside cover of some series of books. Ladybirds?
Can't sell the flat for what he thinks he should get is the real issue. There is a price at which someone will buy, but it is probably a lot lower than he thought he was going to inherit.
Economics 101. Back in the real world, the story tells us buyers must be over 70 and pay £11,000 a year in service charges. What does that Venn diagram look like?
So no-one would buy for one pound?
Well, first, they'd have to live in the area already to know it was for sale; then they would need to be over 70, unable to afford a normally-priced flat, yet still able to pay £11,000 a year in service charges. So what's the Venn diagram?
And that ignores that your reductio ad absurdum would repel buyers because at that price there *must* be something wrong.
There’s really no question to which Angela Rayner is the answer.
If she can’t run her own household without getting into financial trouble, what chance her running the country?
Can we imagine her turning up to a meeting with Trump or Xi, and be taken remotely seriously?
Her household was in financial trouble when she was born, because she grew up in poverty being raised by her grandma and left school at 16 without any qualifications.
I like the idea of a PM with an authentic working class background who has overcome extreme adversity to get to the top. Any foreign leader worth their salt would take seriously someone who has, although some are obviously not worth their salt. I wouldn't blame her for looking down on those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like Trump.
Had she got to Oxbridge from that background or made herself a self made millionaire you might have a point but otherwise there are millions of single mother's raised on council estates who left school with no qualifications and maybe got a middle class office job with a bit of hard work. It doesn't mean they should be PM!
Rayner would be a better campaigner than Starmer no doubt and she she would rally the left more behind her as Corbyn did but she would turn off centrist swing voters and in terms of actual competence for the job Starmer would be better. Sir Keir was himself raised in a relatively working class household and through sheer hard work did manage to get to university and an Oxford postgrad degree and the bar and KC and on that basis if it were a choice between Rayner or keeping Starmer I would keep him
So your view is that she should know her place and stay there.
She has no degree and got no qualifications to speak of at school, effectively Rayner still is working class, just one who knows how to navigate a path to the top of the Labour party.
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
I would just say so what
You seem to think the only way to succeed is to go to University which is nonsense
Indeed, maybe we would be better with street wise, practical and honest people, then some of those governing us
I went to Uni and im useless
My issue with @HYUFD is he seems to think the only way to success is to go to University which is obviously silly
Angela Rayner has a formidable back story and to say she shouldn't have got pregnant at 16 is out of order
Indeed the 50% University policy of Blair was wrong and it is good to see the change to a more sensible mix with FEs
Comments
I can remember being mildly surprised by the appointment but assumed there must be some good reason for making it. SKS needs to make any such reason perfectly clear now, if he can. He also needs to explain why normal vetting procedures failed, if indeed they did.
Of course it's possible the answers to these questions won't bear the light of day, in which case he's stuffed.
Reality is most people pay well over the odds when they purchase a brand new retirement home and then discover the utter lack of demand when they sell.
Were this Reddit the answer would be the price is too high
Burnham had a better rating than both amongst Labour 2024 voters though he is not an option for now
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53741-political-favourability-ratings-december-2025
Though he did go to Oxford, albeit a newer college
The betting value a week back was with Rayner and Miliband, which has been born out by market movements since, meaning that that value has been eroded and is less obvious now. Rayner then 6/1 best odds, now 3/1. Miliband was 20/1, now 8/1. Streeting best odds still 4/1 (Oddschecker, next PM.)
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0193_judgment_dac847087c.pdf
Tbf I was a bit like that about Anna Ford, but I kept my upper lip stiff.
On checking Wiki on her current marital status, '(Ford) was briefly engaged in 2000 to former astronaut David Scott, the seventh man to walk on the Moon'. What a gal!
Apart from that, I think that Rayner has the potential to impress on the upside in office, confounding those who have prematurely formed an opinion on her, whereas Streeting doesn't.
I understand that the council by-election in Ynys Mon, which those of us who'd given it any thought, were under the impression was a nailed on Plaid Cymru hold, has been won by Reform.
If there's a denial it'll be a risibly false wink-wink denial, giving his slightly less rabid supporters something to hide behind while flaunting his untouchable racism to the rabid ones.
Note how, at a certain level, the people in Public, Private & Third Sectors have a certain familiarity with to them. Not to mention familial links.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3ygj7189o
I've bought a few things from Pandora in the distant past, charms for a bracelet for a friend. Suspect shifting to platinum plating won't see prices decline...
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116021857490657707
I'd forgotten the 'my account was hacked' as a possible get out clause.
Nowcast currently has the LDs projected 77 MPs in a hung parliament so up a further 5 MPs from 2024 and massively ahead of the Greens who are projected a mere 18 MPs and if Labour did get back in it would only be with LD confidence and supply now
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast#google_vignette
https://metro.co.uk/video/ronnie-corbett-s-classic-class-sketch-1278885/
Yeah, very impresive Reform win in the Holyhead area and a surprise Lab hold (just) in Somerset.
3 very interesting ones next week
Tuesday in Fishguard on the Ceredigion/Pembroke border - Plaid on paper but Reform in with a shout again maybe and unknown indies in the mix and what happend to the residual Tory Pembroke vote? (Fishguard hardly Tory central though)
Thursday Worth Valley in Keighley and ilkley that the Tories really need to hold if they arent in freefall and
Lab defence in Fletton on the border between Peterborough and NW Cambs which should be a fascinating three wsy fight Lab, Con, Ref - Paul Bristow the Tory mayor has been doorstepping hoping to grab this one but Ref will be strong
Rayner would be a tax and spend Labour Truss
Starmer for all his faults actually did take himself from the skilled working class to the upper middle class by sheer hard work. Streeting too was working class by background, with relatives in prison and son of a single mother in a council flat who also got himself to Cambridge and the upper middle class by hard work
Exclusive: Ben Wegg-Prosser to resign today as chief executive of Global Counsel in wake of Epstein backlash.
Clients had been pressing for resolution of Peter Mandelson’s existing stake - divestment also expected today
I was initially a New Labour enthusiast myself, but don't regret resigning my membership in 2003.
The Iraq war was the final straw but the control by lobbyists on so many issues was the main driver of me leaving.
There's three more years of this absurd situation to go. God help us all.
Holyrood Voting Intention:
Constituency:
SNP: 35% (-13)
RFM: 19% (New)
LAB: 18% (-4)
CON: 11% (-11)
LDM: 10% (+3)
GRN: 5% (+4)
Regional:
SNP: 25% (-15)
RFM: 20% (+20)
LAB: 19% (+1)
LDM: 13% (+8)
CON: 12% (-12)
GRN: 9% (+1)
Via @Moreincommon_, 24 Jan - 3 Feb.
Changes w/ 2021.
However, I don't think Rayner is bright. Just ruthless. So while I'd welcome someone without a degree becoming PM, I wouldn't welcome Rayner specifically becoming PM.
*And don't come back to me with 'so you'd be happy with a doctor without a medical degree' - of course people need to get the proper training for the job they do. It just doesn't need to be in the form of a degree. There isn't a degree in 'running the country'. PPE or Classics or English Literature don't count.
I think some PBers overestimate how far hard work can take you. The course of your life is uncomfortably predictable based even on your circumstances before school.
This is despite Nathan Gill lanquishing in jail
And on those in labour claiming success in Cleveden they lost 25.4% of their vote with Reform just 1.3 behind
There is a rebellion going on
Indies need a 2nd party for the regional list, 6% have gone missing
https://x.com/F1BigData/status/2019706785481830821
On Constituency, Others 2%, no Alba
Streeting in particular had a similar background to hers but got himself to Cambridge
That resonates with 80% plus of the population that politicians on all sides tend to talk over.
There is actually a better example of worldly wise made good sat on the Labour front bench and doing an excellent job
Bridget Phillipson
You seem to think the only way to succeed is to go to University which is nonsense
Indeed, maybe we would be better with street wise, practical and honest people, then some of those governing us
She will be in place long after Starmer
As an aside for @Flatlander who was talking about the Profumo affair, Dr Stephen Ward, the osteopath, had qualified as a doctor in the United States but his qualification was not recognised by our General Medical Council in the 1960s. America has MD and DO, which Ward had and is a joint (no pun intended) degree in medicine and osteopathy.
Eastwood is going to be very interesting. Has JC got enough personal followimg to hang on? Its not a very ripe Reform area at all
There are commercial leases where the current tenant will be happy to pay £x0,000 for someone to take the lease off their hands and that lease will (unlike these leases) have an end date attached to them).
I would not want Rayner as PM, but her ability to rise above the circumstances of her birth is admirable.
Both should be applauded for finding a way to progress upwards from a difficult start in life.
That doesn't mean though that you should necessarily want either to be in charge of their country.
Though it may be interesting to note people who condemn one of the pair for their background while praising the other for it.
But I'm not saying she's smart. I don't think she is particularly smart. Her journey is genuinely impressive. Certainly more so than my born-in-middle-class-household-went-to-nice-school-then-university-got-a-degree-then-a-job-and-became-an-adult-in-a-middle-class-household journey. I genuinely look up to her.
But also, I know quite a few people who have gone from backgrounds almost as unpromising as Ange's to comfortable middle-class lives; I'm equally impressed by them, and wouldn't nominate any of them for PM either.
A good journey <> being the best qualified for PM
Getting a good degree <> being the best qualified for PM
*Although as I mainly read on a Kindle now, there may be some who read lots but don't have physical books.
And that ignores that your reductio ad absurdum would repel buyers because at that price there *must* be something wrong.
Angela Rayner has a formidable back story and to say she shouldn't have got pregnant at 16 is out of order
Indeed the 50% University policy of Blair was wrong and it is good to see the change to a more sensible mix with FEs