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 is a lack of financial education and understanding here all round. £11k a year for that kind of property isn't ridiculous, including council tax (£1k), and weekly home care (worth approx £1.5k?). Having an on site hub and restaurant radically transforms the social life of the residents for the better. Care is also easier to access. If they are downsizing then being able to comfortably pay 10-15 years service charge towards end of life is not going to be particularly unusual.
86% of residents are happy - this is a good place to live, far more suitable for someone with declining health and mobility than trying to maintain a 3/4 bed family home on their own.
But it goes against the mindset of the UK property owning obsessions, service charges are as seen as rent which is seen as dead money. Capital must be preserved to pass down the generations even if that means poorer quality of life for those who have accumulated the capital.
That's not the issue.
The point is the restrictive covenants *on the empty properties* which can make the properties impossible even to give away (as the article suggests): ..One property we found had been vacant for more than nine years. In another case, family members face £60,000 in charges accrued since the property became vacant in 2019. A relative told us it was "like a noose around our necks", and another expressed frustration that "you can't give them away". Another beneficiary reported paying service charges of £750 per month on a flat that has been empty for four years, describing it as a "never-ending nightmare", adding: "It is infuriating and heartbreaking in equal measure."..
From the reporting on this, it really does not sound as though the inability to sell is entirely down to unrealistic expectations of value.
Until I see a link to an auction with a £1 reserve price - the issue is the price they are expecting to receive for the flat.
My expectation is that there is a lot of sunk cost fallacy involved here if you are paying £750 a month - and hoping for £60,000 - 1 year later and £9,000 down you now need that £60,000 to offset the £9,000 costs
Many, many people expect to inherit from their elderly parents and are quite shocked when care costs rapidly diminish the savings etc. No-one has a right to inherit - if money needs to be spent to care for someone it should be spent. And these type housing set up are 'care'.
Our former son in law and his sister paid over £250,000 in care fees for their mother and father
So did my family and then they took another chunk in inheritance tax and then taxed her on the income from interest on the house she had to sell to.pay the fees.
Maybe noone has a right to.inherit but nor should the Govt have the right to tax people on death. Certainly not on estates up to say 2 million.
So you don’t mind inheritance tax, you just want it at a level where you wouldn’t have paid it.
Nos where 99% of people won't pay. Only the very
Only about 5% of estates pay IHT.
Is that because they have been planned, or because they don't reach the threshold? With house prices as they are, I can't believe that figure won't change.
Well quite. It's a pernicious tax on the stupid and the unlucky. The 7 year rule is easily swerved unless you drop dead - though that's why I don't have much time for the landowners making a gigantic fuss about it - a real farmer would have passed that land on decades earlier.
One of the farmer's round here had to take over the family farm when his father sadly dropped dead at 50
Confirming you were the redacted prostrate figure under Andrew Mountbatten Windsor?
OT - I'm not sure Angela can complain too much. The tax issue isn't just a tax issue it is also a judgement issue. Frankly the last thing Lab needs now is anther leader with bad judgement. They've got themselves into a corner where they are desperately hoping Ref will take one of their own seats. Maybe they should have a think about how that has come about.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
So this will be exactly why Major, Brown, Sunak and Truss all had general elections immediately after they took office? Its complete tosh. If that is the best argument they can make against Rayner they should be reading PB.
It will be quite fun quoting back to Rayner her calls for a general election when Tories changed leaders, just as it was fun quoting back her complaints about Tory MPs arranging their tax affairs to their own advantage.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
We can't have Trump/ Putin adjacent fascists running our country.
But we can have a patriotic right wing majority, political rivals but united by a steely determination to reverse our national decline by repairing our institutions from the acid attack of the Blair/Brown constitutional 'reforms'.
I suspect we both have a different definition of "patriotic".
You do. Luckyguys start with 'the Chagos Islands'.............
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
I would have thought that Sir John Hayes would be pretty independently minded - trenchant right-winger. And Lord West is a former First Sea Lord whose ship went down during the Falklands. Not so familiar with the others.
Foord is a very new MP.
Interesting Hayes is on it given that Braverman emailed him confidential documents
The smell of death is in the Westminster air. Labour’s King Rat Peter Mandelson has again cast his sulphurous odour of villainy around the palace, and contamination may drag a decent, well-intentioned Labour leader down with him.
That’s the tragedy.
If anyone still had any doubts about whether Starmer would survive this surely a forecast by Polly that he is going is conclusive proof that he will be fine.
She was cheerleading for Burnham 2 weeks ago, the Guardian commentators are always keen to stick the knife into Labour PMs.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
Thinking about those ads in the Rugby last night, would cricket fans here accept half screen ads at the end of overs etc in order to have international cricket on free to air to ensure a wider viewership amongst people who wouldn’t pay for a subscription?
Thinking about those ads in the Rugby last night, would cricket fans here accept half screen ads at the end of overs etc in order to have international cricket on free to air to ensure a wider viewership amongst people who wouldn’t pay for a subscription?
The way England play, put the adverts on full screen with the cricket in a box in the corner.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
And you were DPP. Where sussing out liars might have been a required core skill.
Thinking about those ads in the Rugby last night, would cricket fans here accept half screen ads at the end of overs etc in order to have international cricket on free to air to ensure a wider viewership amongst people who wouldn’t pay for a subscription?
No. To have adverts intrude in that way would disrupt the rhythm of the game and destroy the very thing you want to put in front of more people. Cricket is about the time in between balls bowled, as well as the brief periods when the ball is in play.
As a general point I think society would benefit from paying for things directly, rather than having adverts pay for things indirectly. And then cricket can choose to put certain events available on free to air to act as a taster to draw in new fans.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
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 is a lack of financial education and understanding here all round. £11k a year for that kind of property isn't ridiculous, including council tax (£1k), and weekly home care (worth approx £1.5k?). Having an on site hub and restaurant radically transforms the social life of the residents for the better. Care is also easier to access. If they are downsizing then being able to comfortably pay 10-15 years service charge towards end of life is not going to be particularly unusual.
86% of residents are happy - this is a good place to live, far more suitable for someone with declining health and mobility than trying to maintain a 3/4 bed family home on their own.
But it goes against the mindset of the UK property owning obsessions, service charges are as seen as rent which is seen as dead money. Capital must be preserved to pass down the generations even if that means poorer quality of life for those who have accumulated the capital.
That's not the issue.
The point is the restrictive covenants *on the empty properties* which can make the properties impossible even to give away (as the article suggests): ..One property we found had been vacant for more than nine years. In another case, family members face £60,000 in charges accrued since the property became vacant in 2019. A relative told us it was "like a noose around our necks", and another expressed frustration that "you can't give them away". Another beneficiary reported paying service charges of £750 per month on a flat that has been empty for four years, describing it as a "never-ending nightmare", adding: "It is infuriating and heartbreaking in equal measure."..
From the reporting on this, it really does not sound as though the inability to sell is entirely down to unrealistic expectations of value.
Until I see a link to an auction with a £1 reserve price - the issue is the price they are expecting to receive for the flat.
My expectation is that there is a lot of sunk cost fallacy involved here if you are paying £750 a month - and hoping for £60,000 - 1 year later and £9,000 down you now need that £60,000 to offset the £9,000 costs
Many, many people expect to inherit from their elderly parents and are quite shocked when care costs rapidly diminish the savings etc. No-one has a right to inherit - if money needs to be spent to care for someone it should be spent. And these type housing set up are 'care'.
Oh I know and I don't expect to inherit (although in the case of my M-i-L I do hope to recover the money i've paid to purchase a car / operations / teeth back).
Looking at the article the first flat seems to be a perfect example of not understanding that a £225,000 brand new flat has a new flat premium and was otherwise probably only worth £175,000 or so.
Which means they've seriously overpriced the flat, add on the fact 30% of the residents have now died off and you can see the problem. Were I buying I would be offering on a number of them and going how low can you go, lowest price gets the sale because it wouldn't surprise me if the real value of the flat is £75,000.
What surprises me is that more of the people who buy them new aren't getting them second hand instead, when there's such a gulf in price. The only thing I can think of is that if you get them new you start out with a bunch of similarly aged 70 year olds who can have dinner parties and discuss hip replacements and GB News with one another for the next 25 years as they slowly die off, whereas if you buy second hand you come in as the "youngsters" and never quite fit in.
Perhaps then there's some edge in waiting for these places to be almost uninhabited then snapping up some of the flats ready for either a "new generation" or the whole thing to be redeveloped. If that ever happens (and if it doesn't, then clearly people are buying them in reality).
That's something to look forward to. Being able to discuss hip replacements and GB News in comfortable surroundings - at a price though.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
There is a psephological argument (though I think a superficial one) in favour of the Tories going centrist. However, I am interested in how its proponents explain the palpable lack of enthusiasm for the Lib Dems. They are of the progressive centre. They are not tainted as the Tories are by Government. They are not responsible for any of Starmer's cock ups either. They are identified with pro-Europeanism - a supposed golden ticket - more than any other party. So why are they causing such a massive collective shrug, and why should the Tories be so desperate to get a slice of that rather meagre pie?
It's more complicated than that. The LDs are part of the old establishment, so are discounted except where they can win for the same reason the Tories are discounted in Bootle. Nothing to do with policy. They are nice people who can't win, which is better than nasty people who can't win.
We have had centrist government since WWII. That is, all governments have in fact (ignore the window dressing) tried to make the social democrat Attlee project work and update it but never fundamentally deny it or provide an alternative.
The Tories, who looked recently as if they were on the right lines, have gone backwards. The idea that there is room for two parties on the nationalist Right is wrong.
The great majority of voters vote centrist.
Incidentally, if Reform form a government (which Labour and Tories are doing their best to bring about) they will in fact govern as centrists (social democrats) with the addition of a very rancid entho-nationalism about borders and skin colour.
Not true about Thatcher though and many of the new Reform recruits from the Tories are diehard Thatcherites
The Thatcher thing perpetuates a myth. She fits absolutely in the centre right updating of social democracy, shifting the balance of state and private but not altering the fundamentals of regulated private enterprise and welfare state which is the bedrock of the Attlee settlement. She tried to make it work better.
She shifted it a lot.
You only have to look at the percentage of UK GDP that is state managed expenditure (about 44-45%) to see that in fact it wasn't shifted very much. And I suspect that the entire welfare budget, and other expenditure too, needs another centre right government looking at it, not to be extreme but to get its principles back closer to those of Attlee's post war government.
That is not the only metric that matters here.
Indeed not, but writing the book takes longer. However, to deny that the UK has a continuous unbroken social democrat history since WWII flies in the face of quotidien reality. (NATO, regulated private enterprise, free education to 18, welfare state, NHS.) Reform will be no different except for the ethno-nationalism.
"Things will be the same because they haven't changed before" has frequently turned out to be a poor predictive rule.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
Not the sort of problem you can tough out though. He can say "I've apologised, I can carry on". But it will never go way.
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
It’s electing 1 member from 3 member constituency last time? So what can we read across? I don’t think % up and down or swing works does it? The actual numbers of voters and who they are will tell us more? Starting with Plaid got 838 voters on 39% turnout, now got 343 on 34% turnout. What we don’t know is, Plaid Voters switched to Reform or just stayed home? Who are the 603 Reform voters? Anything particularly English Speaking and deprived/feeling left behind, about this seat on the council, that makes it different than the other council seats, so being particularly Reform-y? Correct me where wrong the Conservatives got 1444 voters last time, now just 112. Is the main take out the reform number of voters to take the seat - as 603 Seems very low to me. My analysis doesn’t point to a particularly astonishing or shocking result, as I don’t think they had to steal a single vote off plaid to get the win.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
So, all Rayner has to do is say one word about what she would do as PM, and problem solved. What will that word be? "Socialism"?
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
"Trump posts racist video depicting Obamas as monkeys.
"Donald Trump went on a massive social media spree overnight that included posting on Truth Social an election conspiracy video that ended with a clip depicting former president Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys."
I wonder whether the sheer indecency of Trump (never mind the grifting, lying, salaciousness, etc) will at some point start registering. Or are we truly past the point of no return?
Unfortunately there’s a US prism that sees Trump as a fine, upstanding, god fearing hero and the person below as a communistic, antisemitic terrorist.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
Not the sort of problem you can tough out though. He can say "I've apologised, I can carry on". But it will never go way.
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
The main problem is that it's not the first. Any Prime Minister only gets to make so many mistakes. Starmer has reached his quota.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
Yes indeed, it's astonishing nobody seems to be picking up on this.
Are Labour MPs really not going to stop, take a deep breath, and think very carefully what their best option is?
Maybe not - Conservative MPs chose the obvious worst option with Truss, maybe Labour MPs will do the same.
If Rayner was Labour leader it also means Labour would be led by the hard left and competing with Polanski's Greens as to who would be more socialist. Reform would be the party still of the hard right, so a Tory party led by Cleverly would have the centre ground wide open for it to seize (beyond the diehard Remainers who dominate the LDs)
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
Not the sort of problem you can tough out though. He can say "I've apologised, I can carry on". But it will never go way.
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
The main problem is that it's not the first. Any Prime Minister only gets to make so many mistakes. Starmer has reached his quota.
He's still at 1.4 to exit this year. That's free money if you think he's gotta go.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
His dilemma is similar to Cameron's after the Brexit vote rather than the egregious nonsense of Johnson and Truss.
Cameron took a risk. The Referendum was essentially a judgement call. A judgement call he got wrong and he justifiably threw in the towel.
Starmer took a risk on Mandelson. Mandelson in Washington to smooth Trump was a judgement call. A judgement call he got very, very wrong. He should justifiably threw in the towel.
The fact that Starmer hasn't even binned McSweeney suggests he remains in denial.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
So, all Rayner has to do is say one word about what she would do as PM, and problem solved. What will that word be? "Socialism"?
Mandelson has so soiled New Labour over the last week, anything that looks like old Labour has to be an improvement.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
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
No, Winston Churchill did not go to university, nor did Disraeli, nor did Major nor did Lloyd George. All became PM but they all got more qualifications at school than Rayner did.
If you followed traditional religious teaching you wouldn't get pregnant until married
Who is the clever person
The University Graduate who learns what is required to pass exams and often doesnt enter a work environment until 22 or later, often drops in to a mid level role or
Someone with or without qualifications who enters work at 16, learns skills either white or blue collar, builds a career of understanding and knowledge and almost certainly a greater appreciation of real life.
BTW there is no right answer.
Those who think there is a right answer are IMHO the ones who are wrong.
It's a false dichotomy.
My brother-in-law here in Ireland is a welder. A blue collar occupation. So by your argument he would have left school at 16, gone straight into work, learned his trade that way, etc.
But he has had a technically-focused third level education. He's a graduate. Very highly skilled and good at what he does and well-paid for it.
The problem in Britain is that we have an idea of University that it is Oxbridge. It is a Classical education of the Trivium. All books in ancient libraries. Even the practical sciences are a bit of an oddity, more eccentrics in disused parts of buildings, rather than the core focus of the institution.
There's no room for a welder receiving an appropriate third-level education at a British University.
And so that's why British rates of graduate education are lower than its peers, and yet the debate in Britain is focused on making it lower still, and so the British economy lacks the skills to succeed, imports migrants to fill the gaps, and the culture is anti-education. It's so self-harming.
You can do degree apprenticeships too now products of which get well paid jobs
Age clearly impacts on my assessment
At age 16 in the 70s you were uni, white collar admin or blue collar
If you were lucky blue collar you got a good spprentiship in engineering, manufacturing or similar and a trade for life possibly some day release.
For too many their lives were dictated by a few hours in February of their 11th year.
Far more got into excellent academic state schools who were academic when we had grammar schools, pity we can't have a few more of them
I agree
I went to a Grammar School covenanted in the 16th Century by King Edward VI...
In my 3rd form year it was announced that there would be no new entrants in 2 years time as it was being abolished and turned in to a 6th form college.
My first year in 6th form was at my old school new college..
A shocking waste a tragic error.
I'll allow you to guess which Minister of Education made that decision?
My Headmaster a noted Latin scholar and author told 650 boys that if said Minister came to the school he would probably be arrested.
In many ways it defined my politcal direction of travel the sheer impact that decision did to the school, the separate Girls High, the town and the surrounding area.
The culling and wilful attack on some outstanding grammar and secondary schools.
For those under 60 who may wonder who the equivalent in Education to Beeching to the railways was.
The minister who destruction and wilful negligence destroyed a sector for generations.
Her name was Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
Actually there were more pupils in grammar schools in 1997 than in 1979.
It was Labour Ministers Crosland and Williams who really ended grammar schools in most parts of the country, aided by Labour councils and merged them with secondary moderns to create comprehensives.
Heath didn't reverse that trend either and as he was her boss Thatcher had to do what she was told as Education Secretary but where grammars survived it was almost always in Tory held councils
"Grammar schools" are PB's derived version of "Mornington Crescent". HYUFD threads invariably end at "Grammar school" irrespective of the starting position.
As someone who many decades ago went to both a Comprehensive and later a rural Grammar School I won't be changing my mind soon. F*** Grammar schools!
Interesting.
Perceptions can surprise.
I've always been "of the left" but I have never forgotten the honour and privilege of being able to go to an historic grammar school. I have to say it was superbly led and never was anyone judged on anything other than work ethic or ability.
I was definitely lucky to go to such an establishment.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
I have that issue on a daily basis, it's normally the bed though frequently it's the sofa then bed
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
Yes indeed, it's astonishing nobody seems to be picking up on this.
Are Labour MPs really not going to stop, take a deep breath, and think very carefully what their best option is?
Maybe not - Conservative MPs chose the obvious worst option with Truss, maybe Labour MPs will do the same.
If Rayner was Labour leader it also means Labour would be led by the hard left and competing with Polanski's Greens as to who would be more socialist. Reform would be the party still of the hard right, so a Tory party led by Cleverly would have the centre ground wide open for it to seize (beyond the diehard Remainers who dominate the LDs)
The fact that Starmer hasn't even binned McSweeney suggests he remains in denial.
The tone of his answer defending McSweeney was the oddest part of his PMQs performance. He didn't even seem to treat it as a political question but more of an HR issue and was indignant that someone who passed his performance review could be criticised.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
Not the sort of problem you can tough out though. He can say "I've apologised, I can carry on". But it will never go way.
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
That move if he made it would define the man far higher than the politician
It would define him way above many above him, possibly re define politics and certainly make Labour a far more likely winner of the GE.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
I would have thought that Sir John Hayes would be pretty independently minded - trenchant right-winger. And Lord West is a former First Sea Lord whose ship went down during the Falklands. Not so familiar with the others.
Foord is a very new MP.
He was a major in the Army, served in Iraq, and acted as a UN observer in Kosovo.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
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 is a lack of financial education and understanding here all round. £11k a year for that kind of property isn't ridiculous, including council tax (£1k), and weekly home care (worth approx £1.5k?). Having an on site hub and restaurant radically transforms the social life of the residents for the better. Care is also easier to access. If they are downsizing then being able to comfortably pay 10-15 years service charge towards end of life is not going to be particularly unusual.
86% of residents are happy - this is a good place to live, far more suitable for someone with declining health and mobility than trying to maintain a 3/4 bed family home on their own.
But it goes against the mindset of the UK property owning obsessions, service charges are as seen as rent which is seen as dead money. Capital must be preserved to pass down the generations even if that means poorer quality of life for those who have accumulated the capital.
That's not the issue.
The point is the restrictive covenants *on the empty properties* which can make the properties impossible even to give away (as the article suggests): ..One property we found had been vacant for more than nine years. In another case, family members face £60,000 in charges accrued since the property became vacant in 2019. A relative told us it was "like a noose around our necks", and another expressed frustration that "you can't give them away". Another beneficiary reported paying service charges of £750 per month on a flat that has been empty for four years, describing it as a "never-ending nightmare", adding: "It is infuriating and heartbreaking in equal measure."..
From the reporting on this, it really does not sound as though the inability to sell is entirely down to unrealistic expectations of value.
Until I see a link to an auction with a £1 reserve price - the issue is the price they are expecting to receive for the flat.
My expectation is that there is a lot of sunk cost fallacy involved here if you are paying £750 a month - and hoping for £60,000 - 1 year later and £9,000 down you now need that £60,000 to offset the £9,000 costs
Many, many people expect to inherit from their elderly parents and are quite shocked when care costs rapidly diminish the savings etc. No-one has a right to inherit - if money needs to be spent to care for someone it should be spent. And these type housing set up are 'care'.
Oh I know and I don't expect to inherit (although in the case of my M-i-L I do hope to recover the money i've paid to purchase a car / operations / teeth back).
Looking at the article the first flat seems to be a perfect example of not understanding that a £225,000 brand new flat has a new flat premium and was otherwise probably only worth £175,000 or so.
Which means they've seriously overpriced the flat, add on the fact 30% of the residents have now died off and you can see the problem. Were I buying I would be offering on a number of them and going how low can you go, lowest price gets the sale because it wouldn't surprise me if the real value of the flat is £75,000.
What surprises me is that more of the people who buy them new aren't getting them second hand instead, when there's such a gulf in price. The only thing I can think of is that if you get them new you start out with a bunch of similarly aged 70 year olds who can have dinner parties and discuss hip replacements and GB News with one another for the next 25 years as they slowly die off, whereas if you buy second hand you come in as the "youngsters" and never quite fit in.
Perhaps then there's some edge in waiting for these places to be almost uninhabited then snapping up some of the flats ready for either a "new generation" or the whole thing to be redeveloped. If that ever happens (and if it doesn't, then clearly people are buying them in reality).
Massive marketing of the new builds. The companies are strangely reticent about helping owners to sell theirs, as opposed to the companies own, new built flats.
I think the developers do try and make the new sites just that slightly bit better than the existing ones each time as well to encourage this behaviour.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
LOLs if expecting anything juicy out from that panel. Labours done the classic Yes, Minister, and buried this in the long grass.
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
I find it strange that someone who used to be a senior lawyer is so shocked and upset about someone lying.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
What was your activation date?
Ah sorry - I meant when were you born?
Inception date? Seems to be a Nexus-4
I may have to rewatch 'Blade Runner' for the largenumbereth time tonight now you've lured me in.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
Not the sort of problem you can tough out though. He can say "I've apologised, I can carry on". But it will never go way.
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
The main problem is that it's not the first. Any Prime Minister only gets to make so many mistakes. Starmer has reached his quota.
He's still at 1.4 to exit this year. That's free money if you think he's gotta go.
I don't exclude Labour MPs from being unwise enough to leave him in post for a while longer yet.
And it's possible that I'm overreacting and this blunder is more Owen Paterson than Chris Pincher.
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
What was your activation date?
Ah sorry - I meant when were you born?
My guess is Brixian was born in 1959, given what we know so far about him. My guess is also he is a genuine person, since he has displayed at least a modicum of nuance and backstory in his 100 posts. I am surprised at his level of fury towards Kemi, given all the people there are to be cross with right now,and I wouldn't rule out that he's associated with the Labour Party, but I think he's a genuine British human. Don't let me down, Brixian!
Self defence, against people peacefully using sledgehammers?
A bit of digging suggests the whip was dropped by a protester...
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for security guards, who can choose well in advance what gear to have, to choose a whip, which has little value defensively. Would it ?
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
LOLs if expecting anything juicy out from that panel. Labours done the classic Yes, Minister, and buried this in the long grass.
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
Keir Starmer’s allies are warning that an Angela Rayner leadership coup would trigger a general election.
It is being argued Rayner’s left-wing policy platform would differ to the 2024 manifesto and she would not have a personal mandate as PM.
One Labour figure who served on Starmer’s front bench tells @Telegraph : “Presumably Angela Rayner, if she got elected, would have a completely different agenda.
“If you come in with a completely different agenda then the country legitimately says, ‘We didn’t vote for this’.
“And so what are the grounds for refusing a general election? You can claim constitutional grounds, but in the world of frenzied media, of TikTok, YouTube and GB News, is it really sustainable? It doesn’t feel sustainable to me.”
A current cabinet minister said of a leadership switch: “The pressure for an election would be enormous.”
The arguments are backed up by Rayner’s own position in 2022 when she demanded an election after Tory leader changes.
Rayner said back then: “The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
“The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a general election. It’s time for a fresh start with Labour.”
This idea could make Labour MPs pause for thought before any attempt to switch leader given the party’s deep unpopularity.
(If an election result matched the current average polls, with Labour on 19%, scores of MPs would be kicked out of the Commons.)
However… it is worth noting this same claim was made by allies of one Boris Johnson as he wobbled in 2022. Tory MPs then switched leader not once but twice. No snap election was called.
Starmer's few remaining supporters really are getting desperate.
What they say doesn't stand up either constitutionally or practically or in terms of precedent. Constitutionally, the PM is he who commands the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons. He is not a President whose mandate comes from the people.
Practically, if Ange is PM, Labour MPs are going to be just as terrified of the electorate then as they are now. And the new PM isn't going to want to rival Liz Truss in terms of durability. So the chances of there being an election are zero.
And there is no precedent in recent history for a new PM calling an election just because they replaced the old PM - Callaghan didn't in 76, Major didn't in 90, Brown didn't in 07, Truss didn't in 22 and Sunak didn't later that year. The only arguable precedent is May in 2017, and she didn't call an election because she had different policies, she did so because she had no majority and thought she'd win a huge one.
Truly desperate crap from McSweeney or whoever Starmer's remaining supporter is.
Of course you're right - constitutionally there is no need for a GE.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
Yes indeed, it's astonishing nobody seems to be picking up on this.
Are Labour MPs really not going to stop, take a deep breath, and think very carefully what their best option is?
Maybe not - Conservative MPs chose the obvious worst option with Truss, maybe Labour MPs will do the same.
If Rayner was Labour leader it also means Labour would be led by the hard left and competing with Polanski's Greens as to who would be more socialist. Reform would be the party still of the hard right, so a Tory party led by Cleverly would have the centre ground wide open for it to seize (beyond the diehard Remainers who dominate the LDs)
Angela Rayner is hard left?
Rayner was one of just 18 Labour MPs who openly backed Corbyn against Owen Smith in the Labour leadership election of 2016
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
Was just doing a search on PB for an old comment and it was extraordinary how many posters came up in the search who no longer post or have been banned. A really good range of positions too. A shame.
It is perhaps more surprising the number of people who persist. Maybe their first 80,000 post haven't changed a single persons view of Brexit, but who knows if the 80,001st post just might suddenly enlighten their opponents.
There are many good reasons for visiting PB.com, but to change people's minds isn't one of them.
There are some really informed, clever people on PB. People whose opinions I would trust on a lot of topics.*
Its far better at analysis than most of the media.
It is a little prone to centrism, of the Dad variety.
But mainly its like a good local pub (of the old style, without food) where you can drop in at any time of day or night and find someone else here that you can completely disagree with.
*Not pizza combos or Radiohead, but you can't have everything
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
I find it strange that someone who used to be a senior lawyer is so shocked and upset about someone lying.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
If this is genuine anger from Starmer then it will be because he believed he had a close enough relationship with Mandelson to be able to trust him [Mandelson] to tell him [Starmer] the truth. And that trust has been betrayed.
Another Labour MP has publicly and explicitly called for Keir Starmer to quit.
Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, told his local BBC radio station this:
"We can't just keep going on like this - lurching from one crisis to the next. One of the best ways of resetting is to have a renewal of the Labour Party, to restart our offer to the British public, and that means changing who's in charge."
He added: "We are losing the trust and the confidence of the British people, which is very hard won and very easily given away, and we have to address that.
"The Labour party needs to change and that includes the Number 10 operation in its entirety, in my view."
The bit that boggled my tiny mind was Keith going All In supporting McSweeney.
At least go through the motions of sacking the man. It could have worked if the party heard a massive burst of humility and the political wind blew somewhere else for 5 mins.
Instead? Nothing Has Changed.
Its just a matter of time. With any crisis there is always a distinctive double flash - the crisis explodes, and then the way you manage it. Congrats to Keith for making an absolute arse of it and thus nailing shut his political ending.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
I find it strange that someone who used to be a senior lawyer is so shocked and upset about someone lying.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
Not just about someone lying but a known serial liar, indeed someone who is known to be good at his job by virtue of being a two-faced manipulative liar.
I am in a minority who don't think it was a bad appointment but please spare me the pathetic amateur dramatics Keir.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that yet more Tory bloodletting and the sixth leadership change in ten years will do anything to improve the party’s fortunes. People do appreciate that the Tories got so destroyed in 2024 because people stopped taking them seriously, yes?
Up against a populist but chaotic Reform offering and a disappointing chaotic Labour offering the only viable road for the Tories is the long game and stability. A sensible economic prospectus with a bit of red meat thrown in. That’s broadly the contours that Badenoch is sketching out - that’s not necessarily a recipe for landslide majority government but it’s a chance to keep the party viable. Maybe even largest party if the dice fall right (much will depend on what happens to Reform in the next three years).
I have no idea what James Cleverly is designed to offer as an alternative?
Well he is more likely to hold the 2024 Sunak vote and also more likely to get Labour and LD tactical votes in Tory held seats v Reform than Kemi is
What is your evidence for that, please?
I play snooker occasionally at the local Conservative Club. Now it is true that I have to hold my nose and promise to behave.
It is though very interesting to listen to local long standing Members.
Very few have a good word to say about Kemi. The few that have met her talk of her rudeness and arrogance.
They would very much have preferred Penny Mordaunt to have been elected Leader followed by Cleverly.
The overwhelming favourite though had he have stood would have been Jeremy Hunt. The other local favourite is Johnny Mercer
With a new LD MP and several Tory Councillors having defected to Reform and also more actually to fight on their personal record as independents, the mood is very downbeat and none see Kemi as a PM or long term Tory Leader.
Interesting, an Ipsos poll last year though had Boris clear favourite amongst 2024 Tory voters to return as leader if Kemi went, then Cleverly second and a returned Rishi third. Hunt was 5th after Tugendhat. Boris is ineligible though as not an MP so Cleverly is by default favourite with Tory voters now.
2024 Reform voters preferred Jenrick, then Boris second, then Braverman third, so BobbyJ and Suella found their natural home in the end
Explain why Kemi is now more popular than Farage and miles ahead of Starmer
They aren't Tories
She's merely benefitting from being considered as a nothing who isn't Farage or Starmer.
It's like marking the WW2 dictators.
Whose the worst
Hitler Stalin Mussolini
Mussolini would be least unpopular because in comparison he's a nobody. Kemi is irrelevant.
Why have you left out Franco? He of "Are there no rats in Spain? Did Franco have them all shot?"
And by worst, what are we measuring? Stalin won the Great Patriotic War and oversaw the death of 10's of millions of his own people. Hitler lost WW2 and oversaw the death of millions of other countries people (and few million of his own). Mussolini was just a bit rubbish.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
LOLs if expecting anything juicy out from that panel. Labours done the classic Yes, Minister, and buried this in the long grass.
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
That is unfair to this committee
I expect them to produce the facts
That's not their role, it's to look at the docs that the cabinet office think shouldn't be released and make a final decision. There are no findings as such.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
I find it strange that someone who used to be a senior lawyer is so shocked and upset about someone lying.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
If this is genuine anger from Starmer then it will be because he believed he had a close enough relationship with Mandelson to be able to trust him [Mandelson] to tell him [Starmer] the truth. And that trust has been betrayed.
That would be a far more serious error of judgment than appointing Mandelson in the hope that the US didn't ever publish the Epstein files.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
And you were DPP. Where sussing out liars might have been a required core skill.
There an interesting parallel with how Starmer himself lied to get the job.
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
I would have thought that Sir John Hayes would be pretty independently minded - trenchant right-winger. And Lord West is a former First Sea Lord whose ship went down during the Falklands. Not so familiar with the others.
Foord is a very new MP.
He was a major in the Army, served in Iraq, and acted as a UN observer in Kosovo.
He is a pretty straight shooter, aware of the nationals security angles, but not going to be a stooge when the security people have dropped yet another brick.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
LOLs if expecting anything juicy out from that panel. Labours done the classic Yes, Minister, and buried this in the long grass.
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
That is unfair to this committee
I expect them to produce the facts
If Starmer was feeling in anyway in trouble today, Morgan McSmugface would already be hogtied and awaiting the ceremony that makes tomorrow’s front pages.
I’m calling this over. Not only is Starmer surviving, but McSmugface isn’t even going to get offered up as sacrifice. 🤨
Overall I don’t think Number Ten are particularly upset with how Wednesday and Thursday played out.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
Hmm - known liar tells lies shock. I have little sympathy for Keir here to be honest.
Another Labour MP has publicly and explicitly called for Keir Starmer to quit.
Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, told his local BBC radio station this:
"We can't just keep going on like this - lurching from one crisis to the next. One of the best ways of resetting is to have a renewal of the Labour Party, to restart our offer to the British public, and that means changing who's in charge."
He added: "We are losing the trust and the confidence of the British people, which is very hard won and very easily given away, and we have to address that.
"The Labour party needs to change and that includes the Number 10 operation in its entirety, in my view."
The bit that boggled my tiny mind was Keith going All In supporting McSweeney.
At least go through the motions of sacking the man. It could have worked if the party heard a massive burst of humility and the political wind blew somewhere else for 5 mins.
Instead? Nothing Has Changed.
Its just a matter of time. With any crisis there is always a distinctive double flash - the crisis explodes, and then the way you manage it. Congrats to Keith for making an absolute arse of it and thus nailing shut his political ending.
"He lied to me". FFS man you sound pathetic.
Starmer remains in denial. Only Starmer and McSweeney haven't twigged that Starmer is toast.
When PB Tories were still laughing at Mandelson's underpants on Sunday/ Monday I suggested (and was shot down by the very same PB Tories) that Starmer couldn't survive this.
The Mandelson "lied" argument is disingenuous bollocks. Everyone knew Mandelson is a liar last February when he was appointed. As commentators like Michael Gove claimed, it was a brilliant appointment! Until it wasn't.
Starmer's crime is simply very poor judgement. He took the risk to combat Trump and it blew up in his trousers. He has no justifiable reason to cry the river he is crying.
Mandelson's charge sheet on the other hand is f*****' enormous.
Some drugs, some sex, some obscure financial stuff, some more drugs, more sex, some unlikeable people
Repeat
Did you at least enjoy some of episode 2, maybe the arrival of "The Commander" and the subsequent reveal ? I thought that was great TV, and Jack Farthing is an underrated actor.
There is a psephological argument (though I think a superficial one) in favour of the Tories going centrist. However, I am interested in how its proponents explain the palpable lack of enthusiasm for the Lib Dems. They are of the progressive centre. They are not tainted as the Tories are by Government. They are not responsible for any of Starmer's cock ups either. They are identified with pro-Europeanism - a supposed golden ticket - more than any other party. So why are they causing such a massive collective shrug, and why should the Tories be so desperate to get a slice of that rather meagre pie?
It's more complicated than that. The LDs are part of the old establishment, so are discounted except where they can win for the same reason the Tories are discounted in Bootle. Nothing to do with policy. They are nice people who can't win, which is better than nasty people who can't win.
We have had centrist government since WWII. That is, all governments have in fact (ignore the window dressing) tried to make the social democrat Attlee project work and update it but never fundamentally deny it or provide an alternative.
The Tories, who looked recently as if they were on the right lines, have gone backwards. The idea that there is room for two parties on the nationalist Right is wrong.
The great majority of voters vote centrist.
Incidentally, if Reform form a government (which Labour and Tories are doing their best to bring about) they will in fact govern as centrists (social democrats) with the addition of a very rancid entho-nationalism about borders and skin colour.
Not true about Thatcher though and many of the new Reform recruits from the Tories are diehard Thatcherites
The Thatcher thing perpetuates a myth. She fits absolutely in the centre right updating of social democracy, shifting the balance of state and private but not altering the fundamentals of regulated private enterprise and welfare state which is the bedrock of the Attlee settlement. She tried to make it work better.
She shifted it a lot.
You only have to look at the percentage of UK GDP that is state managed expenditure (about 44-45%) to see that in fact it wasn't shifted very much. And I suspect that the entire welfare budget, and other expenditure too, needs another centre right government looking at it, not to be extreme but to get its principles back closer to those of Attlee's post war government.
That is not the only metric that matters here.
Indeed not, but writing the book takes longer. However, to deny that the UK has a continuous unbroken social democrat history since WWII flies in the face of quotidien reality. (NATO, regulated private enterprise, free education to 18, welfare state, NHS.) Reform will be no different except for the ethno-nationalism.
"Things will be the same because they haven't changed before" has frequently turned out to be a poor predictive rule.
I agree with you. But here are the reasons: Reform will want to be elected and re-elected. There is no possibility of being re-elected (which means pleasing the voters of Clacton, Boston and another 325 of the least fashionable constituencies in the UK) unless the state continues providing the free stuff they provide. This in outline is: NHS, schools, welfare state safety net, pensions. These are the bits of the state which cost most from our taxes. A bit can be knocked off it but not much.
The only way of doing free stuff at scale is to have a flourishing private sector + high taxes for everyone with an income. A Reform government will reduce oversight and regulation but not abolish it as it kills too many people if you do laissez faire.
Social democracy + some degree of ethno-nationalism + borders closed but not too closed will be the Reform deal.
NEW The government is sifting through “high tens of thousands” of documents it holds on Peter Mandelson’s vetting to be US ambassador, I understand. Either the information will be released piecemeal in coming weeks, or in one go at a later date. Parliament’s intelligence and security committee will have a say over anything withheld due to “national security” or “international relations”. This one will run and run. More now at @GBNEWS .
Chair: Beamish (Labour peer, appointed by Starmer) Dep Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright Con Peer, Ex Kenilworth MP) Baroness Brown: Crossbencher Dowd, Lab, Bootle Foord, Lib Dem Honiton Hayes, Con - South Holland and the Deepings Morden, Lab - Newport East Twigg, Lab - Widnes Lord West, Lab Peer
LOLs if expecting anything juicy out from that panel. Labours done the classic Yes, Minister, and buried this in the long grass.
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
That is unfair to this committee
I expect them to produce the facts
That's not their role, it's to look at the docs that the cabinet office think shouldn't be released and make a final decision. There are no findings as such.
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
People say he’s honest and decent because they think that’s what boring bureaucrats are supposed to be, but nothing Starmer has done since becoming an MP suggests he is either
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
I find it strange that someone who used to be a senior lawyer is so shocked and upset about someone lying.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
Not just about someone lying but a known serial liar, indeed someone who is known to be good at his job by virtue of being a two-faced manipulative liar.
I am in a minority who don't think it was a bad appointment but please spare me the pathetic amateur dramatics Keir.
Yes. Starmer’s performative amateur dramatics this week have been truly dire and 🤮 inducing. I never understood why the media love all that - the 🤮 we are pointing to led all the news bulletins yesterday.
Media now treats politics like it’s a reality show. Today in the Big Parliament house…
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
And you were DPP. Where sussing out liars might have been a required core skill.
There an interesting parallel with how Starmer himself lied to get the job.
In 2020 Keir Starmer made a commitment to nationalise water, energy, rail & Royal Mail.
A year later he lied & said he'd never made a commitment.
Oh behave.
Starmer may be a fool and you are perfectly entitled to cheer when you see the back of him, but equating pragmatic changes to party policy with something tantamount to treason demonstrates you are no longer a serious commentator.
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
What evidence do we have that Starmer is “honest and decent”?
His first week in power we had FreeSpecsGate
He constantly lies. He’s devious and duplicitous. He claimed he needed a free £3m fiat so his son could “revise”
Then there’s the Ukrainian male models. Chagos. And on
He’s not honest, he’s not decent, and on top of all that he’s a political calamity in an ill fitting suit who can’t walk by himself without embarrassing the nation
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
People say he’s honest and decent because they think that’s what boring bureaucrats are supposed to be, but nothing Starmer has done since becoming an MP suggests he is either
I tend to agree, just making the argument "Even giving the benefit of the doubt to Starmer... he's shown here that he's not PM material"
Another Labour MP has publicly and explicitly called for Keir Starmer to quit.
Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, told his local BBC radio station this:
"We can't just keep going on like this - lurching from one crisis to the next. One of the best ways of resetting is to have a renewal of the Labour Party, to restart our offer to the British public, and that means changing who's in charge."
He added: "We are losing the trust and the confidence of the British people, which is very hard won and very easily given away, and we have to address that.
"The Labour party needs to change and that includes the Number 10 operation in its entirety, in my view."
The bit that boggled my tiny mind was Keith going All In supporting McSweeney.
At least go through the motions of sacking the man. It could have worked if the party heard a massive burst of humility and the political wind blew somewhere else for 5 mins.
Instead? Nothing Has Changed.
Its just a matter of time. With any crisis there is always a distinctive double flash - the crisis explodes, and then the way you manage it. Congrats to Keith for making an absolute arse of it and thus nailing shut his political ending.
"He lied to me". FFS man you sound pathetic.
Starmer remains in denial. Only Starmer and McSweeney haven't twigged that Starmer is toast.
When PB Tories were still laughing at Mandelson's underpants on Sunday/ Monday I suggested (and was shot down by the very same PB Tories) that Starmer couldn't survive this.
The Mandelson "lied" argument is disingenuous bollocks. Everyone knew Mandelson is a liar last February when he was appointed. As commentators like Michael Gove claimed, it was a brilliant appointment! Until it wasn't.
Starmer's crime is simply very poor judgement. He took the risk to combat Trump and it blew up in his trousers. He has no justifiable reason to cry the river he is crying.
Mandelson's charge sheet on the other hand is f*****' enormous.
The problem is I think SKS asked a question such as “is there anything else that may be in the Epstein papers which would cause embarrassment / awkwardness” and Mandelson went nope.
Now we all know that Mandelson lies but I can see why the answer was taken at face value and Mandelson appointed
What is it about political parties these days that they are incapable of choosing the best option for leader.
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
The great leaders that we didn't get to have list gets thinned out along the way. The 'thank god we avoided that' list expands unrelentingly though.
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
I've extolled Clarke's virtues in the past, but does his record withstand scrutiny?
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
3 in my lifetime
Each would have been excellent imho Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod John Smith David Penhalligon
Two very serious men The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
What was your activation date?
Ah sorry - I meant when were you born?
My guess is Brixian was born in 1959, given what we know so far about him. My guess is also he is a genuine person, since he has displayed at least a modicum of nuance and backstory in his 100 posts. I am surprised at his level of fury towards Kemi, given all the people there are to be cross with right now,and I wouldn't rule out that he's associated with the Labour Party, but I think he's a genuine British human. Don't let me down, Brixian!
I think he lives in either Brixham, Devon or Brixton, London and is called Ian. I think he probably asked Kemi out a while ago and she never got back to him...
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
What evidence do we have that Starmer is “honest and decent”?
His first week in power we had FreeSpecsGate
He constantly lies. He’s devious and duplicitous. He claimed he needed a free £3m fiat so his son could “revise”
Then there’s the Ukrainian male models. Chagos. And on
He’s not honest, he’s not decent, and on top of all that he’s a political calamity in an ill fitting suit who can’t walk by himself without embarrassing the nation
Some drugs, some sex, some obscure financial stuff, some more drugs, more sex, some unlikeable people
Repeat
I pretty much got that from the trailer.
Have really enjoyed the first season of Dark Winds on Netflicks though. Set on a Navajo reservation, it has 100% on the critics' Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes. The lead actor is quite mesmerising. I believe there are three more series to go.
Thinking about those ads in the Rugby last night, would cricket fans here accept half screen ads at the end of overs etc in order to have international cricket on free to air to ensure a wider viewership amongst people who wouldn’t pay for a subscription?
No. To have adverts intrude in that way would disrupt the rhythm of the game and destroy the very thing you want to put in front of more people. Cricket is about the time in between balls bowled, as well as the brief periods when the ball is in play.
As a general point I think society would benefit from paying for things directly, rather than having adverts pay for things indirectly. And then cricket can choose to put certain events available on free to air to act as a taster to draw in new fans.
Cricket on Sky runs ads between overs, at drinks breaks and crucially after a wicket. Hence if you pop in and see ads when England are batting it can cause stress...
Starmer may well be honest, even decent, but I don't want the country being run by someone honest and decent yet stupid and pliable enough to believe an assurance by a proven liar who had left government in disgrace multiple times previously, an assurance on a matter fundamental to the security of the country and an assurance which - even before proper vetting was carried out, ran contrary even to the evidence available (e.g. the FT article ref'd in the report Starmer had already seen).
What evidence do we have that Starmer is “honest and decent”?
His first week in power we had FreeSpecsGate
He constantly lies. He’s devious and duplicitous. He claimed he needed a free £3m fiat so his son could “revise”
Then there’s the Ukrainian male models. Chagos. And on
He’s not honest, he’s not decent, and on top of all that he’s a political calamity in an ill fitting suit who can’t walk by himself without embarrassing the nation
Elected in 2017 by pledging that respecting the referendum result was “a matter of principle”
He then spent two years as Shadow Brexit Secretary blocking every attempt to get a deal passed
By 2019 he was arguing it was a “point of principle” that there should be a second referendum, a “People’s Vote”, and that Labour would support Remain no matter what the deal offered by the EU
He is a vegetarian on an animal rights basis, but eats meat when he’s peckish
There never been any reason to think he was honest or decent, he’s the political equivalent of a bent copper. Boris haters just projected the opposite of what they hated about Johnson onto him and convinced themselves their delusion was true
Comments
Entirely fruitless, but fun.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2019762086503493704
Labour MPs, ministers and party insiders tell me they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry, as over Peter Mandelson’s lies about extent of his Epstein links.
But those who know him well say that anger has now turned inwards. That Starmer is, above all else, a man of public service, and will be grappling with his conscious this weekend. Where that ends up, who knows.
But Rayner actually said, just over 3 years ago:
"The Tories have crowned Rishi Sunak without him saying a word about what he would do as PM. He has no mandate, no answers and no ideas. Nobody voted for this.
The public deserve their say on Britain’s future through a General Election."
None of Callaghan, Major, Brown, Truss and Sunak had made similar statements before they became PM.
There will undoubtedly be huge pressure for a GE. That quote will be thrown back at her in every interview and constantly restated by all other parties.
And remember, Labour polls worse with Rayner than Starmer.
https://x.com/asawinstanley/status/2019427652466274740?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
DIdn't you get the memo?
If Labour has to change leader it's obvious Douglas Alexander would be a far better bet than any of the frontrunners - he's sensible, modest, experienced and gives a strong impression of seriousness and authority.
Maybe there are some other options - Healey possibly though not sure if he has the breadth of experience that Alexander does.
Ditto Jeremy Hunt would be by far the best bet for the Conservatives right now.
Anyway, back to the whip..
In the first - Ken Clarke, Jenkins (maybe), Hague (but he had his chance).
I won't bore you with the latter as a list, but surely Burnham is the most notable new addition.
Labour MPs say they’ve never seen Keir Starmer so angry.
Colleagues with him in the lobbies on Tuesday night - during a vote on abolishing the two child benefit cap - say he loudly fumed about Mandelson: "He's a fucking liar. He fucking lied."
As a general point I think society would benefit from paying for things directly, rather than having adverts pay for things indirectly. And then cricket can choose to put certain events available on free to air to act as a taster to draw in new fans.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-narrowly-split-between-labour-led-keir-starmer-and-reform-uk-led-nigel-farage-poll-reveals
Sometime fuck ups are too big to have any option than to resign. This is such a fuck up.
Starting with Plaid got 838 voters on 39% turnout, now got 343 on 34% turnout. What we don’t know is, Plaid Voters switched to Reform or just stayed home?
Who are the 603 Reform voters? Anything particularly English Speaking and deprived/feeling left behind, about this seat on the council, that makes it different than the other council seats, so being particularly Reform-y? Correct me where wrong the Conservatives got 1444 voters last time, now just 112.
Is the main take out the reform number of voters to take the seat - as 603 Seems very low to me. My analysis doesn’t point to a particularly astonishing or shocking result, as I don’t think they had to steal a single vote off plaid to get the win.
Are Labour MPs really not going to stop, take a deep breath, and think very carefully what their best option is?
Maybe not - Conservative MPs chose the obvious worst option with Truss, maybe Labour MPs will do the same.
A lot of the problems we currently see in the criminal justice system can be traced back to his period as Justice minister in the Coalition.
A lot of the privatisations that happened while he was Chancellor don't look so clever now. Thames Water, for example, isn't that a Ken Clarke legacy?
And then, more than anyone, Ken Clarke was the leading pro-European Tory of the period 1997-2015. And the leading task of a politician is to engage in public debate and win that debate. And he lost. He lost that debate within his own party, and he lost that debate across the country.
Ken Clarke didn't become Prime Minister because ultimately he wasn't good enough at politics.
(I didn't say it was my list)
Each would have been excellent imho
Each would have fundamentally changed succession in their respective Parties
Iain MacLeod
John Smith
David Penhalligon
Two very serious men
The third someone ho I think could and would have been wonderfully charismatic and highly effective
Cameron took a risk. The Referendum was essentially a judgement call. A judgement call he got wrong and he justifiably threw in the towel.
Starmer took a risk on Mandelson. Mandelson in Washington to smooth Trump was a judgement call. A judgement call he got very, very wrong. He should justifiably threw in the towel.
The fact that Starmer hasn't even binned McSweeney suggests he remains in denial.
It should though be as much a definition of the power of Advisors and the operation of number 10 and the Civil Service and State security.
If you de politicise it in terms of personality the impact for the future of politics for all is massively enhanced.
Of course there is no way that will happen but it would be a defining and positive moment.
Ah sorry - I meant when were you born?
It would define him way above many above him, possibly re define politics and certainly make Labour a far more likely winner of the GE.
Stellantis writes down $26.5 billion from EV investments
Said to be down to weak demand and Trump policies. Back to the future?
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2026/02/06/stellantis-writes-down-26-5-billion-from-ev-investments/88544970007/
Thanks though to Rottenborough for pasting that bit from GBeebies, to remind us of the time when Starmer’s imminent demise from Mandygate was still a thing.
People lie all the time. People have different thresholds of when they will lie (from "to gain a minor advantage" to "only if it's career-threatening" ) but everyone does it. Half of any lawyer's clients are lying.
Obviously something as serious as a connection to a paedophile trafficking ring is going to be serious enough to lie about. So why is he so surprised?
And it's possible that I'm overreacting and this blunder is more Owen Paterson than Chris Pincher.
My guess is also he is a genuine person, since he has displayed at least a modicum of nuance and backstory in his 100 posts.
I am surprised at his level of fury towards Kemi, given all the people there are to be cross with right now,and I wouldn't rule out that he's associated with the Labour Party, but I think he's a genuine British human.
Don't let me down, Brixian!
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for security guards, who can choose well in advance what gear to have, to choose a whip, which has little value defensively. Would it ?
I expect them to produce the facts
Its far better at analysis than most of the media.
It is a little prone to centrism, of the Dad variety.
But mainly its like a good local pub (of the old style, without food) where you can drop in at any time of day or night and find someone else here that you can completely disagree with.
*Not pizza combos or Radiohead, but you can't have everything
At least go through the motions of sacking the man. It could have worked if the party heard a massive burst of humility and the political wind blew somewhere else for 5 mins.
Instead? Nothing Has Changed.
Its just a matter of time. With any crisis there is always a distinctive double flash - the crisis explodes, and then the way you manage it. Congrats to Keith for making an absolute arse of it and thus nailing shut his political ending.
"He lied to me". FFS man you sound pathetic.
I am in a minority who don't think it was a bad appointment but please spare me the pathetic amateur dramatics Keir.
And by worst, what are we measuring? Stalin won the Great Patriotic War and oversaw the death of 10's of millions of his own people. Hitler lost WW2 and oversaw the death of millions of other countries people (and few million of his own). Mussolini was just a bit rubbish.
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1752978815205204002
In 2020 Keir Starmer made a commitment to nationalise water, energy, rail & Royal Mail.
A year later he lied & said he'd never made a commitment.
I’m calling this over. Not only is Starmer surviving, but McSmugface isn’t even going to get offered up as sacrifice. 🤨
Overall I don’t think Number Ten are particularly upset with how Wednesday and Thursday played out.
Some drugs, some sex, some obscure financial stuff, some more drugs, more sex, some unlikeable people
Repeat
@LukeTryl
Scottish Westminster VI - SNP lead Reform by 5. Labour down 15 from 2024.
🟡 SNP 28% (-2)
➡️ REF UK 23% (+16)
🌹 LAB 20% (-15)
🔶 LIB DEM 12% (+2)
🌳 CON 11% (-2)
🌍 GREEN 6% (+2)
Change vs 2024 GE"
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2019696934181888288
When PB Tories were still laughing at Mandelson's underpants on Sunday/ Monday I suggested (and was shot down by the very same PB Tories) that Starmer couldn't survive this.
The Mandelson "lied" argument is disingenuous bollocks. Everyone knew Mandelson is a liar last February when he was appointed. As commentators like Michael Gove claimed, it was a brilliant appointment! Until it wasn't.
Starmer's crime is simply very poor judgement. He took the risk to combat Trump and it blew up in his trousers. He has no justifiable reason to cry the river he is crying.
Mandelson's charge sheet on the other hand is f*****' enormous.
The only way of doing free stuff at scale is to have a flourishing private sector + high taxes for everyone with an income. A Reform government will reduce oversight and regulation but not abolish it as it kills too many people if you do laissez faire.
Social democracy + some degree of ethno-nationalism + borders closed but not too closed will be the Reform deal.
I never understood why the media love all that - the 🤮 we are pointing to led all the news bulletins yesterday.
Media now treats politics like it’s a reality show. Today in the Big Parliament house…
Starmer may be a fool and you are perfectly entitled to cheer when you see the back of him, but equating pragmatic changes to party policy with something tantamount to treason demonstrates you are no longer a serious commentator.
His first week in power we had FreeSpecsGate
He constantly lies. He’s devious and duplicitous. He claimed he needed a free £3m fiat so his son could “revise”
Then there’s the Ukrainian male models. Chagos. And on
He’s not honest, he’s not decent, and on top of all that he’s a political calamity in an ill fitting suit who can’t walk by himself without embarrassing the nation
Now we all know that Mandelson lies but I can see why the answer was taken at face value and Mandelson appointed
Have really enjoyed the first season of Dark Winds on Netflicks though. Set on a Navajo reservation, it has 100% on the critics' Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes. The lead actor is quite mesmerising. I believe there are three more series to go.
He then spent two years as Shadow Brexit Secretary blocking every attempt to get a deal passed
By 2019 he was arguing it was a “point of principle” that there should be a second referendum, a “People’s Vote”, and that Labour would support Remain no matter what the deal offered by the EU
He is a vegetarian on an animal rights basis, but eats meat when he’s peckish
There never been any reason to think he was honest or decent, he’s the political equivalent of a bent copper. Boris haters just projected the opposite of what they hated about Johnson onto him and convinced themselves their delusion was true