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).
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
Yes. Well spotted
He actually the worst kind of shit. He pretends he’s a moral exemplar. Worse, he possibly believes he is
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
Wasn't really talking to you tbh
lol
Sorry, was just being rude cos I felt like it. I could get into it.
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.
ahem!
Thanks. That's useful. Thatcher's social democrat centrist regime brought public spending down to the lower end of post WWII levels - as in 1955-1960 - correctly rebalancing the formula. This was not maintained and here we are today still running a centrist social democratic regime at far too high a cost. However there are some excuses.
No she didn't. What that graph really shows is not Mrs Thatcher reducing public spending but that GDP increased. Mrs Thatcher had two magic money trees: North Sea oil and privatisation receipts. What we need to see is spending in cash terms, adjusted for inflation but not GDP or dollar parity.
If Starmer does resign does that end the investigation into Mandelson's vetting ?
I wouldn't have thought so. But it takes Starmer's subsequent defenestration off the table.
Maybe it’s because I’m soaking in a bath, but “ defenestration” sounds naughty.
“I’m booked in for a Brazilian, to completely defenestrate my pelvic region.”
De-anything applied to bodies just makes me think of de-gloving, which makes me think of the anecdote in "This is Going to Hurt" about the guy brought to A&E after sliding naked down a concrete lamp post.
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.
People were saying similar things in 2024 about Trump.
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.
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 agree. There aren't enough new posters on here, and we should welcome them with open arms, whatever their views (within reason). I find the amount of flak Brixian has got rather distasteful, particularly the 'he's Morgan McSweeney' stuff.
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.
This is what I find odd with the polling. If you look at the constituencies that are said to be likely to switch to Reform, most (60%) have had a 'lived experience' improvement over the past 5 years if you use IMD (index of multiple deprivation) measures. Perhaps the voting public now have an insatiable desire for free money, cheap services, low tax and don't care if the country's economy won't support it - someone else's problem. So either Reform will be squeezed out by LibLabCon to the chagrin of their supporters or we're going to see one of the many financial crises that the UK likes to bring upon itself.
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 agree. There aren't enough new posters on here, and we should welcome them with open arms, whatever their views (within reason). I find the amount of flak Brixian has got rather distasteful, particularly the 'he's Morgan McSweeney' stuff.
Not as though we are overloaded with folk who'll defend this government either.
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
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.
And Nigel Farage called for a second Brexit referendum. None of this standard issue political claptrap matters a damn.
It would be amazing if a man they virtually no one on here has heard of is appointed PM. Can you imagine being a casual observer of politics and being told ‘Al Carns is PM’ a month from now?
Dan Hodges wrote an article tipping him last year, when he was not even quoted by most bookies
This is why politicians are regarded by the public in such a poor light. Everyone knows that if the scandal had happened to the Tories, Starmer would be demanding the PM stand down.
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
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.
So far about 20 of the usual left wing suspects have publicly attacked Starmer
Most would be better off in Sultanas and Corbyn shit show.
Harman has made some interesting comments in her Sky role.
The majority is unnamed sources from the likes of Piston, Mason, Zeffernan and assorted right wing hacks about as reliable and trustworthy as mandelson
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
Carns is Labour's Ben Wallace and is talked up by the same sort of people who swoon at the sight of a regimental tie. He's been an MP for a year and is a junior minister. Future leader, maybe, but not next prime minister.
I think Badenoch is doing a decent job. I’d vote for her to stop Farage certainly.
If they committed to doing something on university fees and the triple lock I think they’ve got my vote.
This is what I think might happen at the next election: Badenoch becomes PM because lots of centrist and soft leftists vote Tory when they realise the choice is either her or Farage.
It's quite simple - such self driving vehicles have a fault tree that ends with stopping and calling an operator. The operator doesn't remote drive the vehicle. The tell it which manoeuvre to use to get out of the situation.
If the ratio of the these calls to rides is low, then the system is working. If the ratio is high, then it isn't.
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
Camden, you say?
Have they arrested a couple of hundred thousand @SeanT s?
@NafeezAhmed BREAKING: Peter Thiel has denied "co-owning" a fund with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but confirmed he was a limited partner. His denial contradicts former Israeli PM Ehud Barak's assertion in private that Epstein and Theil "owned" the fund
In a private 2016 email to German technology investor Nicole Junckermann copying Epstein, the former Israeli intel and defence chief Barak invites her to a meeting with Valar Ventures executives who are "senior in a new Investment Fund owned by Peter Thiel and JE"
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
This is why politicians are regarded by the public in such a poor light. Everyone knows that if the scandal had happened to the Tories, Starmer would be demanding the PM stand down.
And so he should. There aren't many on here or in the Parliamentary Labour Party rushing to Starmer's defence.
I was on here saying Starmer was toast on Sunday or Monday when you PB Tories were guffawing at Mandelson's Y fronts. I was told Starmer was safe. Poor judgement by PB Tories. Sack 'em all!
I normally appreciate a bit of political drama but I just can't get into Mandygate. I think it's because none of Mandelsons antics are in any way revelatory, it's just him behaving exactly how you'd assume he'd carry on. Also, all of the outrage is so clearly synthetic posturing.
The only people who can unhorse Starme are the Labour MPs. They will only do that if there is alternate and more attractive locus of leadership around which they can coalesce. WesLife is a Friend of Peter. Her out of Coronation Street's tax shenanigans have not yet sufficiently receded in the public consciousness. Mahmood looks like Tony Hancock in drag. Yvette Cooper is Yvette Cooper, & c., & c. When utter nonentities like the an ancient, bald and permanently confused Healey are being discussed as potential leader and PM you know there are no good options.
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.
When I read I really enjoyed the Tony Hillerman books on which Dark Winds is based, I managed to get through them all. Tried one of the tv episodes on a Saturday night after a few drinks and didn’t really get into it, may try again.
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN *UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN *UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT *UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
Any news on their caps lock button?
Its taken far too long. Anything dodgy will be long gone surely?
That "monkey" picture of the Obamas reminds me of some of the drawings of George W. Bush drawn by Steve Bell during the liberation of Iraq. Both the Obama picture and the Bell drawings are wrong and stupid.
Sir Keir Starmer has asked Wes Streeting to help front up controversial plans to reform special educational needs provision, as fears of a mass rebellion from Labour MPs grow
Senior figures in No 10 are understood to be “extremely keen” for Streeting to be prominent in announcing the reforms, and jointly presenting the changes alongside Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary
He would co-author a foreword to the government’s consultation and promote it with Phillipson
The Department of Health and Social Care is involved in parts of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision, although the plans have been led and documents written almost entirely within the Department for Education
The prime minister held crunch talks with Phillipson in No 10 last Friday, after The Times reported that Downing Street officials were nervous about changing the system and wanted to dilute the plans
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.
The smell of ham amongst the influencers is vomit inducing as I remind myself that opinions are like ar**holes. Everyone has them.
This island that Epstein used - which country's police jurisdiction was supposed to be in charge of it? No-one seems to be asking this question, or I may have missed it.
Industry is so bad it may be the first tv drama I abandon at episode 7 of an 8 episode season
Just don’t care about any of them. This is tv for morons
Just because you don't understand the complex finance dialogue...Actually this season of Industry is very good, episodes 2 and 3 especially. Indeed episode 3 includes a German aristocrat espousing the kind of nationalist strong leadership you sometimes espouse
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.
Quite a few pro labour hacks seem to be posting this line. Presumably it’s been co-ordinated to defend Starmer and shore him up.
@NafeezAhmed BREAKING: Peter Thiel has denied "co-owning" a fund with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but confirmed he was a limited partner. His denial contradicts former Israeli PM Ehud Barak's assertion in private that Epstein and Theil "owned" the fund
In a private 2016 email to German technology investor Nicole Junckermann copying Epstein, the former Israeli intel and defence chief Barak invites her to a meeting with Valar Ventures executives who are "senior in a new Investment Fund owned by Peter Thiel and JE"
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.
It will change, the oncoming pension reform to bring DC pensions into IHT calc will see to that. People haven't twigged this yet.
The Tories would be well-advised to pledge a reversal to this policy.
@NafeezAhmed BREAKING: Peter Thiel has denied "co-owning" a fund with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but confirmed he was a limited partner. His denial contradicts former Israeli PM Ehud Barak's assertion in private that Epstein and Theil "owned" the fund
In a private 2016 email to German technology investor Nicole Junckermann copying Epstein, the former Israeli intel and defence chief Barak invites her to a meeting with Valar Ventures executives who are "senior in a new Investment Fund owned by Peter Thiel and JE"
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".
We probably do, but there is only one meaning. To govern patriotically means to govern in the national interest. That's not giving away territory and forcing the nation to borrow billions for the pay for the privilege. It's not facilitating the legal pursuit of former troops who were following orders. It's not presiding over the absence of borders. It's not passing on sensitive information to foreign banks, advising them to 'bully' ones' Government colleagues. It's not giving away 12 years of fishing rights for literally nothing. It's not allowing a nasty dictatorship to erect a spy centre with dungeons in the heart of ones' capital.
We need to get rid of this progressive tactic of subverting the language. There are not 'many forms of patriotism and this is mine' - you are either for the security, prosperity and wellbeing of fellow Britons, or you are against it. You could be against it for what you see as a moral reason - pro 'the world' not just a country, pro the global proletariat, pro 'global south', or just lining your own pockets, but don't sit in front of a Union flag and try to pass off your betrayal as patriotism.
Great post.
Shouldn't need saying really should it? Strange times.
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.
Quite a few pro labour hacks seem to be posting this line. Presumably it’s been co-ordinated to defend Starmer and shore him up.
This island that Epstein used - which country's police jurisdiction was supposed to be in charge of it? No-one seems to be asking this question, or I may have missed it.
This island that Epstein used - which country's police jurisdiction was supposed to be in charge of it? No-one seems to be asking this question, or I may have missed it.
It's in the US Virgin Islands, so the United States Virgin Islands Police Department, but ultimately I presume it comes under FBI, etc.
It was part of the last purchase the US made from Denmark... and now Trump wants to make another. Coincidence?
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.
Well it is pretty desperate and all it shows is the bunker has rather lost the plot. In fact the issue with the "Ming Vase" is that Starmer has not delivered ENOUGH radical change- its just Sunak Part II, which is absolutely not what people were voting for when the ticked the Labour box. I still think Starmer will survive this, but if this is the best that they can do it is not a passing grade. The British political crisis is a general failure of public administration, including, it appears, in the security services. Starmer must find some leadership cojones now. A significant reshuffle and a much clearer agenda for the next year. Otherwise we have at least three years of drift, and the chances of a deadlocked Parliament after the next GE rocket. The country needs leadership in the national interest, and right now this fiasco is costing us big money at a time when the international cards are being shuffled...
That "monkey" picture of the Obamas reminds me of some of the drawings of George W. Bush drawn by Steve Bell during the liberation of Iraq. Both the Obama picture and the Bell drawings are wrong and stupid.
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.
Quite a few pro labour hacks seem to be posting this line. Presumably it’s been co-ordinated to defend Starmer and shore him up.
Well, yes, and in the modern era campaign by tweet is the modus operandi. There were those saying the other day Starmer had no one to defend him - the best defence is time.
I sense the heat going out of this crisis - Starmer is probably fine until the Parliamentary Committee reports unless some smoking gun turns up (or goes off though if it's smoking it probably has gone off).
The only other possibility is IF MPs in their constituencies find the mood so hostile (as distinct from ordinary hostile) it begins to look the only option to keep Labour alive is to ditch the PM and the soundings from London in particular may be relevant where we have local elections in a few weeks.
I suspect, as per the old adage, perceptions of Mandelson fall into two categories - those who've met him and everyone else.
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.
When I read I really enjoyed the Tony Hillerman books on which Dark Winds is based, I managed to get through them all. Tried one of the tv episodes on a Saturday night after a few drinks and didn’t really get into it, may try again.
Worth persevering. Treats the native culture and rituals with great respect. Plus the impact of their pervasive dark magic too.
I think it's fairly well established at this point that he isn't honest, at least in the sense of doing what he said he was going to do or recalling accurately what he said/did. He's capable of believing he didn't do something when it's obvious that he did. Whether you believe that he has a mental problem (my position) or that he habitually lies (LuckyGuy1983's position?), there is a problem here.
Comments
Just don’t care about any of them. This is tv for morons
“I’m booked in for a Brazilian, to completely defenestrate my pelvic region.”
He actually the worst kind of shit. He pretends he’s a moral exemplar. Worse, he possibly believes he is
He a sociopathic weirdo. Get rid
Streeting continuing to drift - it's only a few days since he was favourite. He may get overtaken by Miliband soon.
Rayner 3.85
Streeting 7.4
Miliband 8.8
Mahmood 12.5
(Farage 14)
Carns 17
Cooper 20
In personal news I've been asked to teach Buddhism.
So I'll be turning the wheel and laying down some profound Dharma on the 21st.
Keith is the victim here.
this is who we think it is yeah?
*UK POLICE SAY CARRYING OUT SEARCHES IN WILTSHIRE, CAMDEN
*UK POLICE CARRYING OUT SEARCH WARRANTS OVER 72-YEAR-OLD MAN
*UK POLICE SEARCH RELATED TO PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICE MISCONDUCT
*UK POLICE SAY NO ARREST, ENQUIRIES ONGOING
@bencollins.bsky.social
Once again, it turns out “fully autonomous” means “a guy in the Philippines.”
https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3me7ac4zm2c2f
(Cleared of all charges, Murrell proceedings ongoing)
Dan Hodges wrote an article tipping him last year, when he was not even quoted by most bookies
Most would be better off in Sultanas and Corbyn shit show.
Harman has made some interesting comments in her Sky role.
The majority is unnamed sources from the likes of Piston, Mason, Zeffernan and assorted right wing hacks about as reliable and trustworthy as mandelson
But, point taken. Industry is a bit like: if you’d taken me at my most arrogant and druggy, aged about 29, and turned me into a tv show
I was very often - far too often - an entitled smacked up obnoxious wanker. And the drugs dulled my wits so the redeeming humour was not visible
That’s industry
It's quite simple - such self driving vehicles have a fault tree that ends with stopping and calling an operator. The operator doesn't remote drive the vehicle. The tell it which manoeuvre to use to get out of the situation.
If the ratio of the these calls to rides is low, then the system is working. If the ratio is high, then it isn't.
Without that ratio data, we don't know anything.
Have they arrested a couple of hundred thousand @SeanT s?
BREAKING: Peter Thiel has denied "co-owning" a fund with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but confirmed he was a limited partner. His denial contradicts former Israeli PM Ehud Barak's assertion in private that Epstein and Theil "owned" the fund
In a private 2016 email to German technology investor Nicole Junckermann copying Epstein, the former Israeli intel and defence chief Barak invites her to a meeting with Valar Ventures executives who are "senior in a new Investment Fund owned by Peter Thiel and JE"
https://x.com/NafeezAhmed/status/2019757652985655399?s=20
I was on here saying Starmer was toast on Sunday or Monday when you PB Tories were guffawing at Mandelson's Y fronts. I was told Starmer was safe. Poor judgement by PB Tories. Sack 'em all!
The only people who can unhorse Starme are the Labour MPs. They will only do that if there is alternate and more attractive locus of leadership around which they can coalesce. WesLife is a Friend of Peter. Her out of Coronation Street's tax shenanigans have not yet sufficiently receded in the public consciousness. Mahmood looks like Tony Hancock in drag. Yvette Cooper is Yvette Cooper, & c., & c. When utter nonentities like the an ancient, bald and permanently confused Healey are being discussed as potential leader and PM you know there are no good options.
"The Prime Minister once said:
"My mission will be complete the day the Labour Party has learnt to love Peter Mandelson"
Can he give us an update on that?"
Maybe someone should ask Blair the same question again today?
(Not that using animals to depict politicians negatively is always wrong. Here's a famous American example: https://thomasnast.com/cartoons/the-tammany-tiger-loose/
And I love the RINO cartoon, Michael Ramirez drew of Donald Trump: )
Exclusive from
@MaxKendix
Sir Keir Starmer has asked Wes Streeting to help front up controversial plans to reform special educational needs provision, as fears of a mass rebellion from Labour MPs grow
Senior figures in No 10 are understood to be “extremely keen” for Streeting to be prominent in announcing the reforms, and jointly presenting the changes alongside Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary
He would co-author a foreword to the government’s consultation and promote it with Phillipson
The Department of Health and Social Care is involved in parts of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision, although the plans have been led and documents written almost entirely within the Department for Education
The prime minister held crunch talks with Phillipson in No 10 last Friday, after The Times reported that Downing Street officials were nervous about changing the system and wanted to dilute the plans
@NeilDotObrien
"Where will Keir meet you Wes?
Oh, let's say, the... Trap Lounge, Trap Street, Trappington, TR4 4AP"
(Spoiler: it won't be.)
The Tories would be well-advised to pledge a reversal to this policy.
NEW THREAD
https://x.com/soveyx/status/2019542362805141711?s=61
Shouldn't need saying really should it? Strange times.
'grappling with his conscience' shirley?
It was part of the last purchase the US made from Denmark... and now Trump wants to make another. Coincidence?
https://x.com/grok/status/2019476653240361243?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
In other resurrection news, Epstein may be alive and well in Israel playing Fortnite.
https://x.com/truthpole/status/2019542105517932853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I sense the heat going out of this crisis - Starmer is probably fine until the Parliamentary Committee reports unless some smoking gun turns up (or goes off though if it's smoking it probably has gone off).
The only other possibility is IF MPs in their constituencies find the mood so hostile (as distinct from ordinary hostile) it begins to look the only option to keep Labour alive is to ditch the PM and the soundings from London in particular may be relevant where we have local elections in a few weeks.
I suspect, as per the old adage, perceptions of Mandelson fall into two categories - those who've met him and everyone else.
Us whites don't come out of it too well!