Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Whatever happened to Rebecca Long-Bailey? She was the future once. – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,156
    Andy_JS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    It’s also self fulfilling

    As the government looks increasingly one-term - and it does - so its MPs will act accordingly. MPs destined to lose their seats will think “fuck it” and vote as they wish, morally, and with an eye to future careers. Those in marginals will vote to please their constituents not the government

    Even higher loyalists will be thinking “what’s the point in helping Starmer, he’s crap and he’ll be gone soon”

    So chaos is now inevitable. What a shitshow. And what a painful four years, now beckons, for the UK

    I suspect the next government will be seriously Reform or seriously reform. It will have to be - majorly transformative. We cannot go on like this
    I still think Labour are clear favourites to form or lead the next government.

    Reform's hurdles in the way of government are formidable. Not the least are the Tories determination (unless they pact with them) to do well, which if achieved reduces Reform prospects.

    And, as today's show demonstrates, government is hard. Will enough of the voting public, when it comes to it, think Reform have a front bench to keep the show on the rails? All politics is relative. Labour are awful, but can this disguise the fact that Reform are much worse at politics?
    You keep telling us again and again that Labour are favourites to form or lead the next government. We get the message.
    It's the funniest exit poll scenario.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,414
    edited July 1
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    It’s also self fulfilling

    As the government looks increasingly one-term - and it does - so its MPs will act accordingly. MPs destined to lose their seats will think “fuck it” and vote as they wish, morally, and with an eye to future careers. Those in marginals will vote to please their constituents not the government

    Even higher loyalists will be thinking “what’s the point in helping Starmer, he’s crap and he’ll be gone soon”

    So chaos is now inevitable. What a shitshow. And what a painful four years, now beckons, for the UK

    I suspect the next government will be seriously Reform or seriously reform. It will have to be - majorly transformative. We cannot go on like this
    It's deeply sad in a way. An era is passing. There is an increasing sense of a long withdrawing melancholy. Social democracy is ending at least for a good long time as, it also seems, is softish one nation high toryism.

    I have no idea what will replace it but I am extremely trepidatious.
    Social democracy is not ending, and shows no sign of doing so. Its ambitions may have to get more modest. Rather than social democracy declining, Reform are rapidly shifting towards it. Social democracy has ruled without change except for tinkering since 1945.

    Only Reform show any sign of being against it. But in fact they won't be.

    Ask a simple question: What would Reform have to do in government to keep the voters of Clacton voting for them?

    And another: Do the voters of Clacton want the basic elements of social democracy kept - welfare state, safety net, pensions, NHS, free education to 18?

    It follows, as night follows day, that whatever they say, Reform will preserve the expensive basics of the social democrat deal.
    The voters want the social provision.

    The democracy, human rights… maybe those are expendable.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532
    Andy_JS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    It’s also self fulfilling

    As the government looks increasingly one-term - and it does - so its MPs will act accordingly. MPs destined to lose their seats will think “fuck it” and vote as they wish, morally, and with an eye to future careers. Those in marginals will vote to please their constituents not the government

    Even higher loyalists will be thinking “what’s the point in helping Starmer, he’s crap and he’ll be gone soon”

    So chaos is now inevitable. What a shitshow. And what a painful four years, now beckons, for the UK

    I suspect the next government will be seriously Reform or seriously reform. It will have to be - majorly transformative. We cannot go on like this
    I still think Labour are clear favourites to form or lead the next government.

    Reform's hurdles in the way of government are formidable. Not the least are the Tories determination (unless they pact with them) to do well, which if achieved reduces Reform prospects.

    And, as today's show demonstrates, government is hard. Will enough of the voting public, when it comes to it, think Reform have a front bench to keep the show on the rails? All politics is relative. Labour are awful, but can this disguise the fact that Reform are much worse at politics?
    You keep telling us again and again that Labour are favourites to form or lead the next government. We get the message.
    I think on a site devoted to politcal predictions it's worth saying however, not least because it's far from universally held despite (to me) appearing by some way the most likely outcome from where we are now.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,418
    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609
    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,130
    They don't even know what they voted for ..
    what a shower
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609
    WTF???



    Eric Daugherty
    @EricLDaugh

    🚨 JUST IN: President Donald Trump confirms to Governor Ron DeSantis that the federal government will APPROVE Florida's request to use Florida National Guardsman as immigration judges
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,589
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    It’s also self fulfilling

    As the government looks increasingly one-term - and it does - so its MPs will act accordingly. MPs destined to lose their seats will think “fuck it” and vote as they wish, morally, and with an eye to future careers. Those in marginals will vote to please their constituents not the government

    Even higher loyalists will be thinking “what’s the point in helping Starmer, he’s crap and he’ll be gone soon”

    So chaos is now inevitable. What a shitshow. And what a painful four years, now beckons, for the UK

    I suspect the next government will be seriously Reform or seriously reform. It will have to be - majorly transformative. We cannot go on like this
    I still think Labour are clear favourites to form or lead the next government.

    Reform's hurdles in the way of government are formidable. Not the least are the Tories determination (unless they pact with them) to do well, which if achieved reduces Reform prospects.

    And, as today's show demonstrates, government is hard. Will enough of the voting public, when it comes to it, think Reform have a front bench to keep the show on the rails? All politics is relative. Labour are awful, but can this disguise the fact that Reform are much worse at politics?
    Oh god, shut up
    Might be right. No wonder.you don't want to engage.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 786
    Imagine the ludicrous outcome, that Labour doesn't lose any voters from the last election, in the next one. That is still 33.7% which is less than nothing and in normal times would be a poor second. Of course, they will lose many voters due to a laughable performance, and not gain any. Not only that but their own social media is relentlessly focusing on Reform, as if they are the real opposition, whilst facing Kemi at the despatch box each week. Unless they can find a way to ban all opposition parties and demand the country turn to Juche, Labour will be lucky to be third, and even if they could do that I have my doubts.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,589
    Seems like the US Senate has passed the enabling bill... hope we have no US troops in Europe as soon as the Russian troops in Europe are gone.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,043
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social‬

    My statement on Donald Trump's threat to deport me and his praise for Eric Adams, who the President "helped out" of legal accountability.

    https://bsky.app/profile/zohrankmamdani.bsky.social/post/3lswltxtm7223

    Mamdani won by getting the young to vote. Labour should watch and learn.

    https://bsky.app/profile/upshot.nytimes.com/post/3lsqy7ahius2c
    Starmer could copy his rice eating technique.

    https://x.com/endwokeness/status/1939377616592498861
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    edited July 1
    Reform will have to team up with the Tories, I just can’t see them looking like they have the gravitas to form a government on their own. You can’t go from five inexperienced MPs to filling a cabinet. I think a deal will have to be done, unless Tory MPs defect en masse
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,102

    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
    I'm not sure how Trump is doing proves much other than that Trump is a deranged idiot.

    There are non-Trump populists elsewhere who could be regarded as doing better, if not to everyone's taste.


    I think Farage would be closer to Boris than Trump in the manner of his failure. Lots of words but ultimately too lazy to fix anything.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,494

    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
    And by the time the next election comes around there will be a fair few failing Reform lead county councils to show how clueless and bad a Reform Government would be.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,504
    edited July 1

    WTF???



    Eric Daugherty
    @EricLDaugh

    🚨 JUST IN: President Donald Trump confirms to Governor Ron DeSantis that the federal government will APPROVE Florida's request to use Florida National Guardsman as immigration judges

    Many federal and state agencies have their own lawyers. Are these lawyers or randoms?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532

    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
    I'm not sure how Trump is doing proves much other than that Trump is a deranged idiot.

    There are non-Trump populists elsewhere who could be regarded as doing better, if not to everyone's taste.


    I think Farage would be closer to Boris than Trump in the manner of his failure. Lots of words but ultimately too lazy to fix anything.
    My expectation that a Reform government will fail shambolically is based only on the empirical evidence that a Reform government will be a government and all governments fail shambolically. To think Reform will be significantly better than this lot seems very omptimistic; to think they will be worse than this lot seems very pessimistic. It will be shit. It may be differently shit.

    But as I said, I see a second Labour term approaching with dull and depressing inevitability.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,065
    isam said:

    Reform will have to team up with the Tories, I just can’t see them looking like they have the gravitas to form a government on their own. You can’t go from five inexperienced MPs to filling a cabinet. I think a deal will have to be done, unless Tory MPs defect en masse

    They need 326 MPs to win, regardless of gravitas.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,675
    Andy_JS said:

    isam said:

    Reform will have to team up with the Tories, I just can’t see them looking like they have the gravitas to form a government on their own. You can’t go from five inexperienced MPs to filling a cabinet. I think a deal will have to be done, unless Tory MPs defect en masse

    They need 326 MPs to win, regardless of gravitas.
    And gravitas is a trait not particularly widespread in the two major parties anyway. Who has gravitas on the current Labour or Tory front bench? I think you could count them on one hand, and that’s being very generous.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,065
    Goodness me. This is serious.

    "Pilots suspended after another Air India flight struggles during takeoff hours after Ahmedabad crash
    Pilots’ post-flight report failed to mention critical stall and ‘don’t sink’ warnings, official says"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/air-india-pilots-suspension-boeing-777-stall-warning-b2780259.html
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,055
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
    Streeting is an interesting one. He was a relatively high profile head of the NUS who entered Parliament at just the wrong time to be a Labour politician. It must be difficult to spend the best years of your career kicking around in opposition. He spent a long time on the Treasury Select Committee where my opinion is that he could be very effective when he was really interested in a subject. He got promoted very rapidly to Health Secretary without much experience in more junior roles. Then and now I think he has a problem with coming across as grumpy and thin skinned when challenged on an issue that he cares about. I've heard him described as unsocial which might be a problem in winning over MPs in a leadership race. On the other hand he has a remarkable back story and is a very fluent communicator. If Starmer stays as PM for a decent innings then I think he'll be a much better candidate having been tempered by office.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,343
    The problem for Labour is that while the rebels have a victory it will certainly be a pyrrhic one.

    The message the markets will take away is that Labour have no budget discipline and this will lead to higher interest rates on our debt.

    The budget then becomes a nightmare. I can't see any way that Reeves (or someone) else can square the circle without breaking one or more of their manifesto promises. And then the headlines will be budget betrayal.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532

    The problem for Labour is that while the rebels have a victory it will certainly be a pyrrhic one.

    The message the markets will take away is that Labour have no budget discipline and this will lead to higher interest rates on our debt.

    The budget then becomes a nightmare. I can't see any way that Reeves (or someone) else can square the circle without breaking one or more of their manifesto promises. And then the headlines will be budget betrayal.

    ...and even less money to spend on anything which might ge erate some growth.

    I think it was @kinabalu yesterday who said the only plan any government can have right now is to steet the very narrow fiscal path available and try to generate some growth (I apologise to him if I paraphrase incorrectly: the original was almost certainly better.) Well, this isn't that plan: it's the opposite.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    Stereodog said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
    Streeting is an interesting one. He was a relatively high profile head of the NUS who entered Parliament at just the wrong time to be a Labour politician. It must be difficult to spend the best years of your career kicking around in opposition. He spent a long time on the Treasury Select Committee where my opinion is that he could be very effective when he was really interested in a subject. He got promoted very rapidly to Health Secretary without much experience in more junior roles. Then and now I think he has a problem with coming across as grumpy and thin skinned when challenged on an issue that he cares about. I've heard him described as unsocial which might be a problem in winning over MPs in a leadership race. On the other hand he has a remarkable back story and is a very fluent communicator. If Starmer stays as PM for a decent innings then I think he'll be a much better candidate having been tempered by office.
    Razor thin majority in his seat though. What price would he be to retain it? Odds against I would have thought
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,936
    As lots of people outside the party seem to have a view, here's a Labour Party view on Rayner. We all love our Ange. She's fabulous. But we don't want her as leader - just as we'd never have wanted Prescott as leader. It would be bad for both her and the party. So I doubt it would happen.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,043
    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,083
    isam said:

    Stereodog said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
    Streeting is an interesting one. He was a relatively high profile head of the NUS who entered Parliament at just the wrong time to be a Labour politician. It must be difficult to spend the best years of your career kicking around in opposition. He spent a long time on the Treasury Select Committee where my opinion is that he could be very effective when he was really interested in a subject. He got promoted very rapidly to Health Secretary without much experience in more junior roles. Then and now I think he has a problem with coming across as grumpy and thin skinned when challenged on an issue that he cares about. I've heard him described as unsocial which might be a problem in winning over MPs in a leadership race. On the other hand he has a remarkable back story and is a very fluent communicator. If Starmer stays as PM for a decent innings then I think he'll be a much better candidate having been tempered by office.
    Razor thin majority in his seat though. What price would he be to retain it? Odds against I would have thought
    I don't see how somebody with a razor-thin majority when Labour are 35% in the polls (32ish % in actual votes) stays in their seat when Labour are polling 25%. Of course it's four years out and anything can happen between now and then.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,055
    isam said:

    Stereodog said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
    Streeting is an interesting one. He was a relatively high profile head of the NUS who entered Parliament at just the wrong time to be a Labour politician. It must be difficult to spend the best years of your career kicking around in opposition. He spent a long time on the Treasury Select Committee where my opinion is that he could be very effective when he was really interested in a subject. He got promoted very rapidly to Health Secretary without much experience in more junior roles. Then and now I think he has a problem with coming across as grumpy and thin skinned when challenged on an issue that he cares about. I've heard him described as unsocial which might be a problem in winning over MPs in a leadership race. On the other hand he has a remarkable back story and is a very fluent communicator. If Starmer stays as PM for a decent innings then I think he'll be a much better candidate having been tempered by office.
    Razor thin majority in his seat though. What price would he be to retain it? Odds against I would have thought
    Yes possibly although I think Labour were caught napping on that threat the last time. They'll probably pump more resources into his seat the next time
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,083

    Andy_JS said:

    isam said:

    Reform will have to team up with the Tories, I just can’t see them looking like they have the gravitas to form a government on their own. You can’t go from five inexperienced MPs to filling a cabinet. I think a deal will have to be done, unless Tory MPs defect en masse

    They need 326 MPs to win, regardless of gravitas.
    And gravitas is a trait not particularly widespread in the two major parties anyway. Who has gravitas on the current Labour or Tory front bench? I think you could count them on one hand, and that’s being very generous.
    I am contractually obliged to mention the Iain M Banks spaceship "Very Little Gravitas Indeed" at this point. It's a tic. I'm sorry.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609
    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Labour rebels in the Commons tonight very clear. The person who brokered the Starmer climb-down was Angela Rayner. “She was the person who finally convinced him he needed to give in” one told me.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,102
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    isam said:

    Reform will have to team up with the Tories, I just can’t see them looking like they have the gravitas to form a government on their own. You can’t go from five inexperienced MPs to filling a cabinet. I think a deal will have to be done, unless Tory MPs defect en masse

    They need 326 MPs to win, regardless of gravitas.
    And gravitas is a trait not particularly widespread in the two major parties anyway. Who has gravitas on the current Labour or Tory front bench? I think you could count them on one hand, and that’s being very generous.
    I am contractually obliged to mention the Iain M Banks spaceship "Very Little Gravitas Indeed" at this point. It's a tic. I'm sorry.
    I believe both parties have a Credibility Problem
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,065

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Labour rebels in the Commons tonight very clear. The person who brokered the Starmer climb-down was Angela Rayner. “She was the person who finally convinced him he needed to give in” one told me.

    Yep, it's going to be Rayner vs Streeting after next year's local elections. Difficult to say who'll come out on top at the moment.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609
    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:



    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,412
    X
    Kevin Schofield@KevinASchofield
    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”
    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    So that Tory £15bn "black hole" was no biggie?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532
    Something I've just found out:
    The Dalai Lama is now about 90. When he dies, he gets reincarnated. My understanding is that some Tibetan monks work out who is born bang on when dies and that person becomes the new Dalai Lama (the belief being it's literally the same person). Presumably there are a few candidates checked and kept in reserve and some furtive negotiations with parents. Fascinating to think how this might unfurl in the 21st century. A spanner in the works is that since the last reincarnation, political control of Tibet is now in the hands of the CCP, who now insist that they have a monopoly on knowing which baby is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama (a process which presumably, they don't believe in?) Fascinating to see how this pans out.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,679

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    If not the lady herself, obviously a graduate of the Diane Abbott School of Mathematical Economics.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532

    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:



    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959

    I thought that was quite good, actually. When did Nick Clegg say it? Rather pertinent to this argument whether it was prior to 2010 or 2015.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,532

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Labour rebels in the Commons tonight very clear. The person who brokered the Starmer climb-down was Angela Rayner. “She was the person who finally convinced him he needed to give in” one told me.

    Is this another of Starmer's 'deals'?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,156
    edited July 1
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
    And by the time the next election comes around there will be a fair few failing Reform lead county councils to show how clueless and bad a Reform Government would be.
    I don't think this matters at all. You're not voting Reform because you're motivated by competence.

    I think a lot of it depends on circumstance - if we're in the midst of our biggest ever small boats season in the spring of 2029 and/or there has been a Truss-style financial crisis then yes, I can see it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,083
    Cookie said:

    Something I've just found out:
    The Dalai Lama is now about 90. When he dies, he gets reincarnated. My understanding is that some Tibetan monks work out who is born bang on when dies and that person becomes the new Dalai Lama (the belief being it's literally the same person). Presumably there are a few candidates checked and kept in reserve and some furtiveound negotiations with parents. Fascinating to think how this might unfurl in the 21st century. A spanner in the works is that since the last reincarnation, political control of Tibet is now in the hands of the CCP, who now insist that they have a monopoly on knowing which baby is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama (a process which presumably, they don't believe in?) Fascinating to see how this pans out.

    If memory serves, it's a two-stage thing. The new Dalai Lama is recognised by the Panchat Lama, and the next Panchat Lama is appointed by the new Dalai Lama, and we go around again. It's like Catholicism: the Pope appoints the cardinals, the cardinals appoint the Pope.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307
    Andy_JS said:

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Labour rebels in the Commons tonight very clear. The person who brokered the Starmer climb-down was Angela Rayner. “She was the person who finally convinced him he needed to give in” one told me.

    Yep, it's going to be Rayner vs Streeting after next year's local elections. Difficult to say who'll come out on top at the moment.
    It really requires some special pleading for Labour to have YET ANOTHER male leader.

    Although, Rachel Reeves may have reset that particular clock. "Make us a cup of tea, luv, while us blokes sort out your mess..."
  • eekeek Posts: 30,494
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    One of the lessons of today is that campaigning on the vacuous term 'change' might win an election when the existing government is exhausted and shite but it leads to problems if no one inside the tent knows or agrees what the change is supposed to be.

    As Lavery said today - people voted Lab in for "change" not for a "change for the worse".

    But change could equally be seen as sorting out the deficit situation not helping the mildly disabled.

    Starmer doesn't do the "vision thing" nor can he tell a nation a story of where they are going. So arguments over change will rage.

    It really is a stunning mess.

    One term.

    I think that's a huge conclusion to reach after barely a year in Government. To an extent, he's had Blair's first year but without the economic legacy. Blair had problems with welfare reform in his first year - he also had problems with "gifts" from outsiders but lessons were learned and presentation was improved and he had in Hague and the Tories an awful Opposition who, apart from one brief moment during the 2000 fuel crisis, never posed a serious challenge.

    Starmer too has a divided opposition and Reform simply offer a different kind of "change" which is arguably equally incoherent and equally likely to fail.
    The idea that Farage could run an effective whipping operation and keep his backbenchers in line is laughable given this is the bloke who falls out with just about anyone. And the reality is the electorate still fear Farage more than dislike this government. Trump is a lesson having the populist right in power would be a utter s**tshow.
    And by the time the next election comes around there will be a fair few failing Reform lead county councils to show how clueless and bad a Reform Government would be.
    I don't think this matters at all. You're not voting Reform because you're motivated by competence.

    I think a lot of it depends on circumstance - if we're in the midst of our biggest ever small boats season in the spring of 2029 and/or there has been a Truss-style financial crisis then yes, I can see it.
    I think the question is how many people are in the "don't really want to vote but can't let Reform in" camp.

    A few competent local councils and a fair number of voters may give Reform the benefit of the doubt. Clown level incompetency and many of those voters will be making sure they vote.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,156
    edited July 1
    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    But then government spending is £1.3 trillion, and the deficit £140 billion. Compared to that, the saving really is a rounding error, and I think the expected market reaction is exaggerated as a result.

    I guess it sends a signal about fiscal discipline, but no analyst is really going to be surprised by this mess. All of this stuff is utterly dwarfed by rising health spending anyway.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609

    As lots of people outside the party seem to have a view, here's a Labour Party view on Rayner. We all love our Ange. She's fabulous. But we don't want her as leader - just as we'd never have wanted Prescott as leader. It would be bad for both her and the party. So I doubt it would happen.

    If Starmer fell under a spinning lathe tomorrow - who would be leader?

    Wes hasn't got the local party vote me thinks.

    Burnham? But how?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,823
    Andy_JS said:

    Goodness me. This is serious.

    "Pilots suspended after another Air India flight struggles during takeoff hours after Ahmedabad crash
    Pilots’ post-flight report failed to mention critical stall and ‘don’t sink’ warnings, official says"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/air-india-pilots-suspension-boeing-777-stall-warning-b2780259.html

    Looks like a 777 rather than a 787, but still seriously worrying.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,609
    Cookie said:

    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:



    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959

    I thought that was quite good, actually. When did Nick Clegg say it? Rather pertinent to this argument whether it was prior to 2010 or 2015.
    He said something about ordinary people who were "alarm clock Britain" getting up in the dark iirc.

    t'interweb seems to say dated 2011.

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,102

    Andy_JS said:

    Goodness me. This is serious.

    "Pilots suspended after another Air India flight struggles during takeoff hours after Ahmedabad crash
    Pilots’ post-flight report failed to mention critical stall and ‘don’t sink’ warnings, official says"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/air-india-pilots-suspension-boeing-777-stall-warning-b2780259.html

    Looks like a 777 rather than a 787, but still seriously worrying.
    Take off during a thunderstorm, which might explain the incident, but not the lack of reporting.

    Have Air India got a pilot problem?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,442

    As lots of people outside the party seem to have a view, here's a Labour Party view on Rayner. We all love our Ange. She's fabulous. But we don't want her as leader - just as we'd never have wanted Prescott as leader. It would be bad for both her and the party. So I doubt it would happen.

    If Starmer fell under a spinning lathe tomorrow - who would be leader?

    Wes hasn't got the local party vote me thinks.

    Burnham? But how?
    Unless Burnham returns as an MP it would be Rayner as polls of Labour members show
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,043

    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:


    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959

    Is it not meant as a dig againt Kemi Badenoch?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,412

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Labour rebels in the Commons tonight very clear. The person who brokered the Starmer climb-down was Angela Rayner. “She was the person who finally convinced him he needed to give in” one told me.

    Well it looks like Angela Rayner has launched her unofficial leadership campaign tonight among the PLP and the wider Labour party membership. Now we just wait to see how long Keir Starmer's premiership limps on before he loses the complete confidence of his own Cabinet and backbenchers and he throws in the towel and calls it a day.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    Trump says Israel has agreed terms for 60-day ceasefire, urges Hamas to accept deal
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,598
    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-how-jaguars-rebranding-gamble-triggered-a-98-collapse-in-sales-3899142/

    "For decades, Jaguar stood for a blend of British engineering, performance, and luxury, an identity that helped the brand build loyalty among customers who valued refinement and heritage. But in its attempt to reinvent itself for a new era, Jaguar now finds itself facing one of the most severe sales declines seen in the European automotive market. In April 2025, the company registered just 49 vehicles in Europe, a 97.5% drop from 1,961 units sold during the same month the previous year."

    Have we done this yet?

    I'm sure there were some other factors but this is absolutely hilarious. Go woke...

    Is this a spoof or true? They did a sort of rebrand recently in pink which elicited some hilarity on PB. I decided on the spot to stick to the 12 year old Micra because I wanted some cred with the gang.
    It’s true. They just stopped making any new cars. Having a rest.
    Is this nornal business practice - for a car company to stop making cars and have a rest?
    Jaguar is one brand of JLR and the rest of the company have kept making and selling cars for the other brands. They paused Jaguar production because the model line up was stale, unprofitable and they needed to retool the plant for the new BEV GT thing. You can debate about whether this was wise although there wasn't really an alternative by this point because they had let the range decay into irrelevance. So the collapse in sales is because they are not even trying to sell cars, nothing to do with that promo video.

    What the harrumphing gammons and neo-fascists in this discussion don't understand, despite having it explained to them multiple times, is that Jaguar's traditional markets NO LONGER EXIST AT A PROFITABLE SCALE. They already have very successful SUV brands and they aren't going to beat Porsche's engineering omnipotence and Qualität ohne Kompromisse philosophy in the sub Ferrari/Lambo/McLaren sports car market. So what's left if they want Jaguar to exist as a brand? Apparently, it's a BEV haut-couture Bentley competitor. The competition isn't quite as fierce in that segment so it makes a sort of sense I suppose.

    The other alternative was just to give up and sell the brand to Geely or somebody which has some remorseless logic to it.
  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 504

    As lots of people outside the party seem to have a view, here's a Labour Party view on Rayner. We all love our Ange. She's fabulous. But we don't want her as leader - just as we'd never have wanted Prescott as leader. It would be bad for both her and the party. So I doubt it would happen.

    Might be good for betting though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,273
    Cookie said:

    Something I've just found out:
    The Dalai Lama is now about 90. When he dies, he gets reincarnated. My understanding is that some Tibetan monks work out who is born bang on when dies and that person becomes the new Dalai Lama (the belief being it's literally the same person). Presumably there are a few candidates checked and kept in reserve and some furtive negotiations with parents. Fascinating to think how this might unfurl in the 21st century. A spanner in the works is that since the last reincarnation, political control of Tibet is now in the hands of the CCP, who now insist that they have a monopoly on knowing which baby is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama (a process which presumably, they don't believe in?) Fascinating to see how this pans out.

    Have you only just found this out?
    It is a little (actually quite a bit) more complicated than that.
    The CCP have a form to request permission to reincarnate. Yes, really.
    The DL will choose whether to reincarnate. And where. And when.
    This is a choice of a living Buddha. It doesn't have to be in Tibet, or China. Or Earth.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,273

    As lots of people outside the party seem to have a view, here's a Labour Party view on Rayner. We all love our Ange. She's fabulous. But we don't want her as leader - just as we'd never have wanted Prescott as leader. It would be bad for both her and the party. So I doubt it would happen.

    If Starmer fell under a spinning lathe tomorrow - who would be leader?

    Wes hasn't got the local party vote me thinks.

    Burnham? But how?
    Burnham has no interest in returning to Westminster.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,273
    @Cookie

    A far more detailed and accurate description of how the Dalai Lama is identified.

    https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily-life/birth-to-exile

    The BBC article today uses the word "soul". Aaaargh!
    One concept all Buddhist sects are united in denying the existence of...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,501
    edited July 2

    Israeli settlers on West Bank attack IDF: https://youtu.be/yb8mNsg4v7k

    Maybe the settlers watched Glastonbury?

    Oh, and Bibi's govt is trying to cancel his trial and impeach Arab MPs.

    Has anyone considered that some sort of pardon for Bibi might mean there is no need to prolong the war?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,501
    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    edited July 2

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    Oh dear god, we know this is going to turn into culture war pitchforks at dawn. Kemi already has the tweets ready about it all going Woke.

    My question is it necessary, I mean who uses cash anymore ;-)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    Oh dear, more trouble at mill....

    This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the US and hurt casual gamblers, too. You could pay more in tax than you won.

    https://x.com/PhilGalfond/status/1940198538493010316
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    Dura_Ace said:

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    £5 Clarkson
    £10 Diana
    £20 Captain Tom
    £50 a JCB

    🇬🇧
    Not Jag?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307
    Dura_Ace said:

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    £5 Clarkson
    £10 Diana
    £20 Captain Tom
    £50 a JCB

    🇬🇧
    How would you symbolise the Brexit vote on a note?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,598

    Dura_Ace said:

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    £5 Clarkson
    £10 Diana
    £20 Captain Tom
    £50 a JCB

    🇬🇧
    How would you symbolise the Brexit vote on a note?
    Barry, 63.


  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    £5 Clarkson
    £10 Diana
    £20 Captain Tom
    £50 a JCB

    🇬🇧
    How would you symbolise the Brexit vote on a note?
    Barry, 63.


    To be honest, that sums up England so well, stick him on £5, £10, £20, £50, make a special £100 .,..
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a "30% or 35%" tariff on Japan if a deal between the two countries is not reached before a deadline next week.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqrd0e9j7o
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,275
    Next U-Turn incoming?

    The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.

    In two separate letters to Yvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.

    Additionally, several UN special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK government to say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/01/yvette-cooper-plan-ban-palestine-action-un-experts-lawyers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,549

    Israeli settlers on West Bank attack IDF: https://youtu.be/yb8mNsg4v7k

    Maybe the settlers watched Glastonbury?

    Oh, and Bibi's govt is trying to cancel his trial and impeach Arab MPs.

    Has anyone considered that some sort of pardon for Bibi might mean there is no need to prolong the war?
    Maybe Trump could pardon him?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,549

    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:



    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959

    Which party will fight for those who use their mobile phones to wake themselves up in the morning?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,060
    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    MikeL said:

    It's very clear - once you start handing money out to people you can't stop.

    Article on the BBC last week said in many (most?) countries, disabled people get their additional costs paid for, ie:

    - if they need equipment, Govt buys the equipment
    - if they need taxis, Govt pays the taxi company

    etc etc.

    That would change the whole dynamic and dramatically reduce amount paid out re mental health.

    Certainly it seems that the well-meaning desire to have mental health issues treated with equivalence to physical ones is a big reason why we’re now in this financial mess. For while there are undoubtedly many people with serious mental health issues meriting treatment and support, it is also easier to fake a mental health condition, as the many videos on social media telling people how to complete their PiP claims clearly indicate, and without any face to face assessment it’s obvious that people who shouldn’t be getting the benefit are slipping through.
    It is pathetic , any tom dick or Harry can get PIP, benefits etc etc. An absolute shambles. how can we hav e26% disabled versus Europe which is less than a quarter of that. Freeloaders is the answer
    Source?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922
    isam said:

    Stereodog said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Massive, if true.


    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7m
    It was Angela Rayner who pushed for today's major U-turn to be made, when it became clear the govt was going to lose the vote.

    Extraordinary that a govt with a working majority of 165 was on course to lose - and that it only stopped it two and a half hours before the vote

    Like I said. Rayner is good at politics.

    Remember that to win the leadership you need to understand and have the support of backbenchers in your own party. Rayner has that, Streeting does not. He is Billy Nomates.
    More than that - he doesn't have the membership vote.

    I have no idea why he is 2nd favourite. He's very talented. Top communicator. Easily best in his party. Arguably he should be leader. But where's the vote?
    He's second favourite because lost of gamblers on politics vote on 'it should be him because he's best', not understanding that being best is only one of a number of factors leading to political success.
    Streeting is an interesting one. He was a relatively high profile head of the NUS who entered Parliament at just the wrong time to be a Labour politician. It must be difficult to spend the best years of your career kicking around in opposition. He spent a long time on the Treasury Select Committee where my opinion is that he could be very effective when he was really interested in a subject. He got promoted very rapidly to Health Secretary without much experience in more junior roles. Then and now I think he has a problem with coming across as grumpy and thin skinned when challenged on an issue that he cares about. I've heard him described as unsocial which might be a problem in winning over MPs in a leadership race. On the other hand he has a remarkable back story and is a very fluent communicator. If Starmer stays as PM for a decent innings then I think he'll be a much better candidate having been tempered by office.
    Razor thin majority in his seat though. What price would he be to retain it? Odds against I would have thought
    It depends whether Gaza is still as salient next time around, and whether the same candidate (or another with equal determination and social media skills) stands again. None of the mainstream parties in his seat will get anywhere close.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,549
    Cookie said:

    Something I've just found out:
    The Dalai Lama is now about 90. When he dies, he gets reincarnated. My understanding is that some Tibetan monks work out who is born bang on when dies and that person becomes the new Dalai Lama (the belief being it's literally the same person). Presumably there are a few candidates checked and kept in reserve and some furtive negotiations with parents. Fascinating to think how this might unfurl in the 21st century. A spanner in the works is that since the last reincarnation, political control of Tibet is now in the hands of the CCP, who now insist that they have a monopoly on knowing which baby is a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama (a process which presumably, they don't believe in?) Fascinating to see how this pans out.

    It doesn't have to be child, does it? I mean it's traditionally a child, but there's nothing stopping it being - say - a 78 year old man living in Washington DC and Florida.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,549

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    My understanding is that Sir Kier Starmer will be on the banknotes going forward.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,922

    Next U-Turn incoming?

    The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.

    In two separate letters to Yvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.

    Additionally, several UN special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK government to say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/01/yvette-cooper-plan-ban-palestine-action-un-experts-lawyers

    That would be a sensible u-turn; the mystery is how snowflake got into such an inappropriate overreaction in the first place?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,501
    IanB2 said:

    Next U-Turn incoming?

    The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.

    In two separate letters to Yvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.

    Additionally, several UN special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK government to say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/01/yvette-cooper-plan-ban-palestine-action-un-experts-lawyers

    That would be a sensible u-turn; the mystery is how snowflake got into such an inappropriate overreaction in the first place?
    She must have stopped reading PB as we were first to question if plane-painting amounted to terrorism.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,879
    .
    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    The greater blindness is the apparent ignorance of our debt levels, and what that implies.
    Just economic illiteracy.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,043

    Next U-Turn incoming?

    The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.

    In two separate letters to Yvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.

    Additionally, several UN special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK government to say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/01/yvette-cooper-plan-ban-palestine-action-un-experts-lawyers

    Funny how "the rule of law" shouldn't happen when the law conflicts with the attitudes those who scream loudly about it care about.

    Damaging property absolutely is classed as terrorism, legally. That is the law.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,879
    Eabhal said:

    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    But then government spending is £1.3 trillion, and the deficit £140 billion. Compared to that, the saving really is a rounding error, and I think the expected market reaction is exaggerated as a result.

    I guess it sends a signal about fiscal discipline, but no analyst is really going to be surprised by this mess. All of this stuff is utterly dwarfed by rising health spending anyway.
    Disability payments are one of the fastest growing items of expenditure. They also sit at the intersection of health and welfare, the two largest items of government expenditure.

    A demonstration that they remain out of control sends quite the signal.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,060
    Dura_Ace said:

    Bank of England to redesign banknotes

    Banknotes issued by the Bank of England are about to get their first major redesign in more than 50 years.

    Notable historical figures, such as Sir Winston Churchill on the current fiver, have featured on these banknotes since 1970 but could be on the way out.

    The public are being asked for their views on new themes, such as nature, innovation, or key events in history.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4nn1d2vzxo

    May the gods preserve us from no-marks wanting to make their little bit of history.

    £5 Clarkson
    £10 Diana
    £20 Captain Tom
    £50 a JCB

    🇬🇧
    Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

    £5 Conquest
    £10 War
    £20 Famine
    £50 Death
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,442
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    But then government spending is £1.3 trillion, and the deficit £140 billion. Compared to that, the saving really is a rounding error, and I think the expected market reaction is exaggerated as a result.

    I guess it sends a signal about fiscal discipline, but no analyst is really going to be surprised by this mess. All of this stuff is utterly dwarfed by rising health spending anyway.
    Disability payments are one of the fastest growing items of expenditure. They also sit at the intersection of health and welfare, the two largest items of government expenditure.

    A demonstration that they remain out of control sends quite the signal.
    Plus this


    “The United Kingdom faces the largest single-year exodus of wealth ever recorded, per Forbes.”

    https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1940107383373709770?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    We are now in a truly dire doom loop. NYC in the 70s. We are stuck with monumental debt and a left wing government that only knows how to add to that debt. The debt is paid by wealthy taxpayers - but they’re fleeing

    As they go the tax base shrinks and services wither - so crime and disorder increases. So, more rich people leave

    London property, as I’ve said, is likely to crater. We could see an unprecedented implosion
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,538
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    But then government spending is £1.3 trillion, and the deficit £140 billion. Compared to that, the saving really is a rounding error, and I think the expected market reaction is exaggerated as a result.

    I guess it sends a signal about fiscal discipline, but no analyst is really going to be surprised by this mess. All of this stuff is utterly dwarfed by rising health spending anyway.
    Disability payments are one of the fastest growing items of expenditure. They also sit at the intersection of health and welfare, the two largest items of government expenditure.

    A demonstration that they remain out of control sends quite the signal.
    Plus this


    “The United Kingdom faces the largest single-year exodus of wealth ever recorded, per Forbes.”

    https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1940107383373709770?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    We are now in a truly dire doom loop. NYC in the 70s. We are stuck with monumental debt and a left wing government that only knows how to add to that debt. The debt is paid by wealthy taxpayers - but they’re fleeing

    As they go the tax base shrinks and services wither - so crime and disorder increases. So, more rich people leave

    London property, as I’ve said, is likely to crater. We could see an unprecedented implosion
    They'll try and sell it as a victory as inequality will have come down.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,631
    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,043

    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies

    I doubt it, considering we just had 14 years of right-led government where many of us on the right who are worried about debt never forgot about it.

    And it led to the removal of one Prime Minister within days, brought down by people on the right who were concerned about debt.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,043
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Cookie said:

    https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1940143354836394128

    After the welfare climbdown, one Labour MP was heard saying: “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds.”

    I'd love to know who that was.
    There is a real blindness among the public at large in how much greater a billion is than a million. It's depressing but not surprising that this includes MPs.
    But then government spending is £1.3 trillion, and the deficit £140 billion. Compared to that, the saving really is a rounding error, and I think the expected market reaction is exaggerated as a result.

    I guess it sends a signal about fiscal discipline, but no analyst is really going to be surprised by this mess. All of this stuff is utterly dwarfed by rising health spending anyway.
    Disability payments are one of the fastest growing items of expenditure. They also sit at the intersection of health and welfare, the two largest items of government expenditure.

    A demonstration that they remain out of control sends quite the signal.
    Plus this


    “The United Kingdom faces the largest single-year exodus of wealth ever recorded, per Forbes.”

    https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1940107383373709770?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    We are now in a truly dire doom loop. NYC in the 70s. We are stuck with monumental debt and a left wing government that only knows how to add to that debt. The debt is paid by wealthy taxpayers - but they’re fleeing

    As they go the tax base shrinks and services wither - so crime and disorder increases. So, more rich people leave

    London property, as I’ve said, is likely to crater. We could see an unprecedented implosion
    Curious why you end such a negative post on such an optimistic conclusion.

    I doubt you're right though, unfortunately, since supply vastly exceeds demand still so prices should remain stubbornly high.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,079
    I've just been on Facebook and read a sad story about a 61 year old man who died open water swimming.

    Which is sad and tragic, obviously. But two different people in the comments put, for zero reason whatsoever, that the death must be a result of vaccination.

    Are these people really that deluded, or are they trolls, or bots who are part of a disinformation campaign?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,412

    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies

    I am no fan of the Reform party, but can you remind of the realistic or feasible fiscal plans this Labour Government had in place immediately after Keir Starmer won the leadership contest and became the Leader of the Opposition for the next four years? I wouldn't mind, but having watched him and his party in Government literally ditch and go back on all the fiscal policy promises they made to the electorate over the last couple of years they were in Opposition I find it a bit rich to have a dig at any other Opposition parties.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191
    edited July 2
    rcs1000 said:

    Oh, so edgy. Totally radical. How can they lose?

    Yet Nick Clegg said same thing ten or more years ago:



    Zia Yusuf

    @ZiaYusufUK
    ·
    3h
    Reform will fight for those who set their alarm clocks. ⏰

    https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/1940128627250929959

    Which party will fight for those who use their mobile phones to wake themselves up in the morning?
    One interesting snippet (amongst loads obviously) in Orwell’s diaries is at what a premium alarm clocks went for during WWII. Manufacturing had other priorities and working clocks cost big money. I suppose the lower orders still had knockers up for their early shift at the Sten gun factory, but who knocked up the knockers up?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,494
    fitalass said:

    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies

    I am no fan of the Reform party, but can you remind of the realistic or feasible fiscal plans this Labour Government had in place immediately after Keir Starmer won the leadership contest and became the Leader of the Opposition for the next four years? I wouldn't mind, but having watched him and his party in Government literally ditch and go back on all the fiscal policy promises they made to the electorate over the last couple of years they were in Opposition I find it a bit rich to have a dig at any other Opposition parties.
    There a big difference between a party that is trying to be fiscally responsible but picking the wrong cuts to a party that is even now promising everyone their cut (lower taxes, higher spending, keeping very quiet about the NHS).

    As for this Government - it's a mess. And the welfare cuts so badly announced that no wonder the Government had to conceed.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,035
    Meanwhile, in local news from London,

    I see former Mayoral candidate [Susan Hall] has joined Rupert Lowe's new outfit. So has David Starkey. Elon Musk seems to also support it.

    Restore Britain wants to: deport 2 million people, have net negative migration, restore the death penalty, ban the burqa, defund the BBC.


    https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3lsxj3tgqzc2i

    Technically OK, since Restore isn't a party, but not really compatible with being a Conservative AM, surely?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,079

    Meanwhile, in local news from London,

    I see former Mayoral candidate [Susan Hall] has joined Rupert Lowe's new outfit. So has David Starkey. Elon Musk seems to also support it.

    Restore Britain wants to: deport 2 million people, have net negative migration, restore the death penalty, ban the burqa, defund the BBC.


    https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3lsxj3tgqzc2i

    Technically OK, since Restore isn't a party, but not really compatible with being a Conservative AM, surely?

    Is it true they want to deport two million people? What's their criteria?

    And their name is pants, as 'restore UK' is already used by several groups, including:

    "Restore, a project of Birmingham Churches Together, working with refugees and asylum seekers in Birmingham, Solihull and Smethwick. Our vision statement is:

    Restore’s vision is for a society into which all refugees and asylum seekers are welcomed, valued and integrated."

    https://www.restore-uk.org/about-us/
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,420

    Meanwhile, in local news from London,

    I see former Mayoral candidate [Susan Hall] has joined Rupert Lowe's new outfit. So has David Starkey. Elon Musk seems to also support it.

    Restore Britain wants to: deport 2 million people, have net negative migration, restore the death penalty, ban the burqa, defund the BBC.


    https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3lsxj3tgqzc2i

    Technically OK, since Restore isn't a party, but not really compatible with being a Conservative AM, surely?

    Well I’m with them on the BBC
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,504
    "Humiliation for Starmer as he loses control of Commons"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czry6gv80mjo

    Chris Mason sticks the boot in.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,710
    eek said:

    fitalass said:

    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies

    I am no fan of the Reform party, but can you remind of the realistic or feasible fiscal plans this Labour Government had in place immediately after Keir Starmer won the leadership contest and became the Leader of the Opposition for the next four years? I wouldn't mind, but having watched him and his party in Government literally ditch and go back on all the fiscal policy promises they made to the electorate over the last couple of years they were in Opposition I find it a bit rich to have a dig at any other Opposition parties.
    There a big difference between a party that is trying to be fiscally responsible but picking the wrong cuts to a party that is even now promising everyone their cut (lower taxes, higher spending, keeping very quiet about the NHS).

    As for this Government - it's a mess. And the welfare cuts so badly announced that no wonder the Government had to conceed.
    They had to concede because many of the dimmer back benches believed the lies about things being choices and the Tories being evil, that this was a rich country (instead of a deeply indebted one) and that these sorts of cuts were not necessary. And, of course, Starmer being Starmer, he had to accept the fantasy rather than face the reality.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,879

    Something tells me that those on the right who are worried about the debt will forget all about that if Reform win who also have no realistic or feasible fiscal policies

    They'll forget about it while voting for them.
    It will take considerably more effort to ignore it were Reform actually to be elected.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,946
    L4%K fans, SKS fans please explain!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,733

    Meanwhile, in local news from London,

    I see former Mayoral candidate [Susan Hall] has joined Rupert Lowe's new outfit. So has David Starkey. Elon Musk seems to also support it.

    Restore Britain wants to: deport 2 million people, have net negative migration, restore the death penalty, ban the burqa, defund the BBC.


    https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3lsxj3tgqzc2i

    Technically OK, since Restore isn't a party, but not really compatible with being a Conservative AM, surely?

    Perhaps we will come to look back fondly on Farage as a moderate.
Sign In or Register to comment.