I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Is Kemi's true aim to get rid of him? Obviously she's got to say she does, but ideally she just weakens him without striking a fatal blow. A weak, unpopular, failing Prime Minister mired in scandal is exactly what a LOTO wants. The longer this continues, the more damage he does to his party.
The last thing Kemi wants is him gone, and replaced by someone clean and competent. Fortunately for her, the prospects of that look very slim indeed.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
I know nothing of his time as DPP, but I'm sure that his time as PM will cast quite a light on earlier events.
Starmer somehow thinks he can just move on. He must know deep down he’s never going to lead another general election campaign.
He could though believe he has one last chance to leave a mark and prevent his career ending in failure. He could decide to Rejoin. No Referendum required. Just the speech of a lifetime and let his parliamentary majority do the rest.............
Starmer somehow thinks he can just move on. He must know deep down he’s never going to lead another general election campaign.
He could though believe he has one last chance to leave a mark and prevent his career ending in failure. He could decide to Rejoin. No Referendum required. Just the speech of a lifetime and let his parliamentary majority do the rest.............
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
That would require her having an ounce of guile and subtlety.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
It was a decent-ish performance by Starmer.
He even got some loud cheers towards the end. I still think as I've said before, Labour MPs are just a lot more loyal and afraid of dethroning than Tory MPs are.
A lot of them will show absolute loyalty to him until they are forced to move. Then they all will. They will be forced when he quits and that's basically it.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
We now get into the legal and non-legal definitions of what "applying pressure" can mean....I bit like pass / failing vetting....
'just fucking approve it' sounds like pressure to a non-lawyer like me.
As non-lawyers, faced with vetting of Petey, you would also think it would be a very open and shut case of no, absolutely no, no with a cherry on top, the dodgy fucker...but then it gets shovelled into the civil service machine and it becomes "some concerns that might be able to be mitigated"..
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I miss Brown and the promise of a 'great clunking fist' on peebee before Vince Cable owned him with the Stalin to Mr Bean comment. There was a cracking argument on here that time Cameron lost his temper with Brown and threw his notes aside about performative rage versus righteous indignation
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
He was doomed as soon as soon as he didn't quit after Mandelson was sacked.
If he hadn't U-turned on benefit reform he could have dug in on policy terms. But he didn't. The only thing - ONLY thing! - he has got is Iran. That's it.
The hole Starmer has dug himself into is that he has nothing else to anchor himself to. No big strategy, no grand plan to see through. Blair weathered all kinds of mess and would have walked through this because people basically could see what he was trying to do. To be fair I think Johnson despite all my hatred for him, got by on at least pretending to have a plan for quite a while too. Same with Cameron and Osborne.
I am afraid I can only conclude what many have said that I didn't believe at the time but I now concede I was completely wrong: Starmer is completely empty. He is totally incapable of planning or doing politics of any kind. When you understand this, it all makes sense. There is absolutely nothing there.
Therefore on the basis that Burnham has at least one idea from what I can tell, he's better by default.
I don't regret for voting for Starmer. But I do regret that he's still there.
What is Burnham's one idea? As far as I can tell, his only policies are a) Andy Burnham to be Prime Minister and b) to ignore all those pesky capitalists who run the bond market. I'm unconvinced this will end well for him (or us).
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
Wow, twenty years ago. I was a young man then. Cameron got the better of Blair most weeks. He still wasn't a particularly good Prime Minister by 2016. Although better than anyone who came afterwards.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
He was doomed as soon as soon as he didn't quit after Mandelson was sacked.
If he hadn't U-turned on benefit reform he could have dug in on policy terms. But he didn't. The only thing - ONLY thing! - he has got is Iran. That's it.
The hole Starmer has dug himself into is that he has nothing else to anchor himself to. No big strategy, no grand plan to see through. Blair weathered all kinds of mess and would have walked through this because people basically could see what he was trying to do. To be fair I think Johnson despite all my hatred for him, got by on at least pretending to have a plan for quite a while too. Same with Cameron and Osborne.
I am afraid I can only conclude what many have said that I didn't believe at the time but I now concede I was completely wrong: Starmer is completely empty. He is totally incapable of planning or doing politics of any kind. When you understand this, it all makes sense. There is absolutely nothing there.
Therefore on the basis that Burnham has at least one idea from what I can tell, he's better by default.
I don't regret for voting for Starmer. But I do regret that he's still there.
What is Burnham's one idea? As far as I can tell, his only policies are a) Andy Burnham to be Prime Minister and b) to ignore all those pesky capitalists who run the bond market. I'm unconvinced this will end well for him (or us).
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I remember Andrew Sparrow used to always seem to say, in the guardian, ‘narrow win for Brown’
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Thought May had some decent outings before the 2017 election.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Blair was rubbish. Don't you remember the Blairometer in the Sun. Hague won almost every week from 1997 to 2001
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Thought May had some decent outings before the 2017 election.
She had her moments (as did Ed M), but I think the warning signs were there in that a lot of her set pieces were, in hindsight, rather scripted and didn’t feel very authentically “her”.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
My advice to Dave (pbuh) was to not pull his punches.
I said no matter what he did he would be seen as arrogant out of touch posh boy.
He should use that to knock down a few bodies with it.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Blair was rubbish. Don't you remember the Blaitometer in the Sun.
Hague won every week from 1997 to 2001
Hague had the skills to deploy humour as did Cameron to a lesser extent. Neither of the present incumbents can and it’s a major weakness for them both.
But it did Hague sod all good. Blair remained in complete control and won the next election at a canter.
If the aim of PMQs is to force the PM to resign then Starmer won convincingly If the aim is long term set up of tarnishing Labour reputations then Badenoch won convincingly If the aim is illumination we all lost convincingly like every other week.
The 'clip' will probably be Kemi telling him its time to go
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
There was a fundamental dishonesty involved, which is what makes it a grift. The people he was selling to thought they were buying photos from a real woman, and so they were deceived.
Now, to a certain extent, if the photos were sold by a real woman there could still be an element of grift, in that the people buying photos would be encouraged to believe that they were doing so as part of a relationship with the seller. A lot of these sorts of para-social relationships between content creators and their customers can be a bit problematic, leading to issues at both ends.
But what is the intrinsic difference between buying photos of a real woman vs a simulacrum? You are still just getting an image.
Its an interesting thought. Would an AI image a child porn be legal, bit not a photo of real child porn (clearly not).
IANAL (thank god) but would assume the the offence of possession of an image is unaffected but that creation of an AI image may be different
IANAL either but I believe opening an image on your browser is "making an image" - that's why you often get news strories saying "made 10,000s of pictures"
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
I know nothing of his time as DPP, but I'm sure that his time as PM will cast quite a light on earlier events.
Yes, I don’t think it will be long before enterprising journalists start digging up any screw-up at the CPS under his leadership where they can suggest fairly or unfairly that “no wonder this travesty of justice happened if this is how his leadership was”.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
Rayner would be a wet dream for Kemi and Davey as Labour leader but not good for Polanski and not great for Farage either
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Blair was rubbish. Don't you remember the Blairometer in the Sun. Hague won every week from 1997 to 2001
Hague only won a number of their exchanges because he was also very good at it.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
I know nothing of his time as DPP, but I'm sure that his time as PM will cast quite a light on earlier events.
Yes, I don’t think it will be long before enterprising journalists start digging up any screw-up at the CPS under his leadership where they can suggest fairly or unfairly that “no wonder this travesty of justice happened if this is how his leadership was”.
Savile will be weaponised at some point if he clings on
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
If the aim of PMQs is to force the PM to resign then Starmer won convincingly If the aim is long term set up of tarnishing Labour reputations then Badenoch won convincingly If the aim is illumination we all lost convincingly like every other week.
The 'clip' will probably be Kemi telling him its time to go
She was asking last week's questions.
Questions 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should have been;
"Olly Robinson did everything that was asked of him. Olly Robinson followed accepted Civil Service procedure, towed the Number 10 line and covered your back over the Mandelson appointment. Prime Minister, why did you sack him?"
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Starmer knows he is taking the Labour cause backwards. He would stand down if he felt there was somebody in his team who could do a better job.
But he looks around and his inflated self-worth says "Nah. Nobody will do better."
What is this 'Labour cause' of which you speak, Mark?
As far as I can see there is no cause as such, just an attempt to run the shop reasonably sensibly. That isn't setting the bar very high, although some way higher than some of the governments of the past ten or so years.
Unfortunately I can't see that Nobody would indeed do better. If Labour had a Nobody who might, the Party would surely be lining him up right now. They haven't, and they aren't.
It's why I'm considering joining the Greens, after over 50 years in Labour. Yes, they're a bit wild, with policy-making very much on the hoof and only solidified at their annual conference. But they do seem to have energy and a positive can-do attitude to politics, which the established parties have somehow mislaid...
The 'can-do' thing is fine as a start, but it is what they plan that counts. Four sample questions for Greens;
1) Outline the next 10 years, allowing for contingencies with regard to borrowing, deficit and debt 2) Nearly all big lorries are powered by fossil fuels. What's the plan? 3) How will you manage the UK's defence needs, including the nuclear issue, and our relationship with NATO? 4) Who will be allowed and who will not be allowed to take up residence in the UK and on what basis?
The risk the Greens run is of being Reformgreen, in that they rely on popularity by having simple answers to fashionable or populist questions. The test of political parties is where they stand in relation to hard realities that won't be top of the list for their supporters.
And, finally, if conference is the policy arbiter, how do you avoid multiple policies that contradict each other like the standard 'high spend but low tax especially for our voters' sorts of nonsense?
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Has a PMQ session ever moved the dial one jot?
I think Starmer quite skilfully destroyed Johnson via PMQs.
Let us imagine Burnham does get to be PM. How long will the honeymoon last?
What sort of polling shift will be see, if any? I think it might be very small.
Every government is going to struggle until they accept that they have to enact meaningful reform for there to be mid-to-long term improvement. That doesn’t neatly fit into the electoral cycle; hence why the Starmer government has been such a letdown because it had the tools to do much more in its early days with its majority.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Could be crucial in some of the 'head to head' bits of London - the direct Lab Tory boroughs and the new Lab Green battlegrounds and even more fatal where they face Reform in the Red Wall etc Multiple fronts. All a bit Rishi '24
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Has a PMQ session ever moved the dial one jot?
When it does move is when it is a setup, the LoTO asks the PM to put an answer on question knowing that they or the media are about to release some information that will make their on the record answer at best a half truth. So its really external factors but in combination with the PM falling into the bear trap.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Has a PMQ session ever moved the dial one jot?
Not to my knowledge but it can give an insight into whether the leader has lost his or her own party. Starmer was getting very little support earlier this week. Today seems to have been slightly better (I didn’t see it).
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
I would argue that Cameron is the last PM or LOTO who was really any good at PMQs.
Blair was the master.
Has a PMQ session ever moved the dial one jot?
Not to my knowledge but it can give an insight into whether the leader has lost his or her own party. Starmer was getting very little support earlier this week. Today seems to have been slightly better (I didn’t see it).
I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
Everyone born after 2008 to be banned from smoking
Which is untrue.
Neither the headline nor the story underneath mention that there is to be no ban on post 2008 people smoking, only a ban of them purchasing the stuff personally. In much the same way as the 2.9 million illegal drug users have been banned from all such purchases for decades. (how is that scheme getting on by the way?)
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
He was Ok and she was irrelevant. If her job was to score points for the Tory Party or herself she didn't. Apart from that her end line was silly. Most politicians are not Martin Luther king so I wish they's just say what they've got to say
If the aim of PMQs is to force the PM to resign then Starmer won convincingly If the aim is long term set up of tarnishing Labour reputations then Badenoch won convincingly If the aim is illumination we all lost convincingly like every other week.
The 'clip' will probably be Kemi telling him its time to go
She was asking last week's questions.
Questions 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should have been;
"Olly Robinson did everything that was asked of him. Olly Robinson followed accepted Civil Service procedure, towed the Number 10 line and covered your back over the Mandelson appointment. Prime Minister, why did you sack him?"
He didn't. The ECB sacked Olly Robinson from the test team over social media posts, Olly Robbins however, yes, Starmer knifed him.
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
This is likely to be the last PMQs of the parliamentary session
The prime minister is planning to send MPs away next Tuesday, more than a week before the public goes to the polls for the elections on May 7. It won't be back until May 13
Backbenchers have been told to expect the prorogation of parliament to happen next Tuesday evening. Number 10 is said to want to avoid further questions about the appointment of Mandelson before the elections
Wasn't that announced last week - I'm sure I heard that was the plan.
I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Oh so he's going full Corbyn, unfit.
"neither are acceptable..."
But why even the need to say that, it's like how Corbyn used to say "I abhor all forms of racism" whenever he was asked about anti-Semitism. Weird.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
I’m still more at a loss about the weirdness of how vetting decisions are passed on and applied.
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
Following Sir Olly's evidence, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today requested that Cat Little, Ian Collard, Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney attend and give evidence.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
If the aim of PMQs is to force the PM to resign then Starmer won convincingly If the aim is long term set up of tarnishing Labour reputations then Badenoch won convincingly If the aim is illumination we all lost convincingly like every other week.
The 'clip' will probably be Kemi telling him its time to go
She was asking last week's questions.
Questions 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should have been;
"Olly Robinson did everything that was asked of him. Olly Robinson followed accepted Civil Service procedure, towed the Number 10 line and covered your back over the Mandelson appointment. Prime Minister, why did you sack him?"
He didn't. The ECB sacked Olly Robinson from the test team over social media posts, Olly Robbins however, yes, Starmer knifed him.
It is all about perception. Does Badenoch understand this?
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
That doesn’t make any sense. Badenoch doesn’t have to tread a fine line because she can’t remove Starmer. The idea that if she was a bit more devastating at PMQs, then Starmer would be off, is silly.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
With or without Starmer Labour are going to get creamed. If there is to be a fight back Starmer is not in that plan.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
From what I recall, pb Tories were neither wholly neutral nor objective in their assessment and some were engaged in a CCHQ astroturfing operation in the belief the MSM would follow the pb verdict on PMQs.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
From what I recall, pb Tories were neither wholly neutral nor objective in their assessment and some were engaged in a CCHQ astroturfing operation in the belief the MSM would follow the pb verdict on PMQs.
I wasn't here in the period but the period between Johnson becoming PM and Partygate was totally nauseating at times.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
Davey has been much more effective at calling Starmer to account than Badenoch has.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
From what I recall, pb Tories were neither wholly neutral nor objective in their assessment and some were engaged in a CCHQ astroturfing operation in the belief the MSM would follow the pb verdict on PMQs.
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
I’m still more at a loss about the weirdness of how vetting decisions are passed on and applied.
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
You are of course right, but I very much doubt Starmer would answer in the way you have done. If indeed he deigned to answer at all.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
Davey has been much more effective at calling Starmer to account than Badenoch.
Well it's not really his job to call Badenoch to account ..
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
Davey has been much more effective at calling Starmer to account than Badenoch.
I miss the old days of pb. When Cameron was doing PMQs, the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
From what I recall, pb Tories were neither wholly neutral nor objective in their assessment and some were engaged in a CCHQ astroturfing operation in the belief the MSM would follow the pb verdict on PMQs.
They always do. That's why all stores have stopped selling pineapple pizza and Radiohead can't get a gig in any pub.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
You are going to have a large number of posts you will have to say you got it wrong on when Kemi remains in post and fights GE 29
To some extent Starmer has succeeded in turning this into a process story, but if you take a step back from the detail, blaming the civil service is farcical.
It was a political appointment. The system did what the prime minister wanted and did it in the right way, obtaining the necessary mitigations for Mandelson. Nobody is responsible for that except the prime minister, and he's busy doing the thing he claimed he would never do and blaming his team.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
You are going to have a large number of posts you will have to say you got it wrong on when Kemi remains in post and fights GE 29
I suspect HYUFD has the jump on you here. She is not going to be LOTO at the next GE.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
That doesn’t make any sense. Badenoch doesn’t have to tread a fine line because she can’t remove Starmer. The idea that if she was a bit more devastating at PMQs, then Starmer would be off, is silly.
The big difference today in PMQs was Starmer answered the questions, no what about squirrels.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
With or without Starmer Labour are going to get creamed. If there is to be a fight back Starmer is not in that plan.
I have a feeling that Labour may do a bit better (by which I mean a bit less worse) than expected and Reform will do less well than expected - due to turnout differentials.
I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Oh so he's going full Corbyn, unfit.
"neither are acceptable..."
I thought the statistics were pretty clear that there had been a large rise in antisemitic attacks. It isn't really on for a party leader to be casting doubt on whether it is actually happening. It minimises the seriousness of the situation and creates confusion about what needs responding to and so what needs to be done.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
That doesn’t make any sense. Badenoch doesn’t have to tread a fine line because she can’t remove Starmer. The idea that if she was a bit more devastating at PMQs, then Starmer would be off, is silly.
The big difference today in PMQs was Starmer answered the questions, no what about squirrels.
Comments
When Cameron was doing PMQs,
the pb Tories would say he was either "on fire" or "pulling his punches" depending on how well he had done.
A weak, unpopular, failing Prime Minister mired in scandal is exactly what a LOTO wants. The longer this continues, the more damage he does to his party.
The last thing Kemi wants is him gone, and replaced by someone clean and competent. Fortunately for her, the prospects of that look very slim indeed.
Deny, if you dare, Johnson attended a KGB "exotic" party without his minders whilst Foreign Secretary.
He even got some loud cheers towards the end. I still think as I've said before, Labour MPs are just a lot more loyal and afraid of dethroning than Tory MPs are.
A lot of them will show absolute loyalty to him until they are forced to move. Then they all will. They will be forced when he quits and that's basically it.
There was a cracking argument on here that time Cameron lost his temper with Brown and threw his notes aside about performative rage versus righteous indignation
https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-shows-people-consistently-underestimate-how-often-things-go-wrong-across-society/
Blair was the master.
I said no matter what he did he would be seen as arrogant out of touch posh boy.
He should use that to knock down a few bodies with it.
But it did Hague sod all good. Blair remained in complete control and won the next election at a canter.
If the aim is long term set up of tarnishing Labour reputations then Badenoch won convincingly
If the aim is illumination we all lost convincingly like every other week.
The 'clip' will probably be Kemi telling him its time to go
What sort of polling shift will be see, if any? I think it might be very small.
Questions 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 should have been;
"Olly Robinson did everything that was asked of him. Olly Robinson followed accepted Civil Service procedure, towed the Number 10 line and covered your back over the Mandelson appointment. Prime Minister, why did you sack him?"
1) Outline the next 10 years, allowing for contingencies with regard to borrowing, deficit and debt
2) Nearly all big lorries are powered by fossil fuels. What's the plan?
3) How will you manage the UK's defence needs, including the nuclear issue, and our relationship with NATO?
4) Who will be allowed and who will not be allowed to take up residence in the UK and on what basis?
The risk the Greens run is of being Reformgreen, in that they rely on popularity by having simple answers to fashionable or populist questions. The test of political parties is where they stand in relation to hard realities that won't be top of the list for their supporters.
And, finally, if conference is the policy arbiter, how do you avoid multiple policies that contradict each other like the standard 'high spend but low tax especially for our voters' sorts of nonsense?
Multiple fronts. All a bit Rishi '24
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/2046926221171134627
By my count we've had now two more named Labour MPs openly saying the PM is doomed.
I do think Starmer had a rum deal, but he has also been undeniably s***.
Better thsn that!
I asked
@ZackPolanski
yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Oh so he's going full Corbyn, unfit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/22/morgan-mcsweeney-starmer-former-chief-of-staff-to-be-questioned-by-mps
‘Yeah.’
GB News presenter Tom Harwood asks Labour MP Jonathan Brash if it’s time for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign.
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/2046924043291402378
Jonathan Brash calls for PM to resign
This may be the most important development in recent days. Huge new financial support for Ukraine. Game changing.
Russia is in deep trouble.
@CharlieSimpsonA
https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/2046882763739988420?s=20
Everyone born after 2008 to be banned from smoking
Which is untrue.
Neither the headline nor the story underneath mention that there is to be no ban on post 2008 people smoking, only a ban of them purchasing the stuff personally. In much the same way as the 2.9 million illegal drug users have been banned from all such purchases for decades. (how is that scheme getting on by the way?)
https://news.sky.com/story/everyone-born-after-2008-to-be-banned-from-smoking-13534824
TBH Israel under its current leadership has ceased to have the right to exist.
The more atrocities the more it becomes enviable to prop it up
Shocking to see a synagogue completely destroyed the day after Passover. Hopefully the culprits will be brought to justice.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
Following Sir Olly's evidence, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today requested that Cat Little, Ian Collard, Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney attend and give evidence.
Cat Little will give evidence tomorrow at 9am.
Morgan McSweeney will attend Tuesday.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
Because that puts a very different spin on what you wrote..
That's why all stores have stopped selling pineapple pizza and Radiohead can't get a gig in any pub.
It was a political appointment. The system did what the prime minister wanted and did it in the right way, obtaining the necessary mitigations for Mandelson. Nobody is responsible for that except the prime minister, and he's busy doing the thing he claimed he would never do and blaming his team.
I hope Polanski will admit that was a mistake.