Political authority is a lot like virginity, once it is gone it is very difficult to get back

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

RochdalePioneers said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Before the PB Tories think that today was a triumph for their side, it wasn't. As John Crace notes: "The thing with Kemi is that her manner is so off-putting. That weird sense of superiority when she has so little to be superior about. The arrogance and the condescension. The perpetual sneer. The feeling she is permanently doing the rest of us a favour. All of which makes it hard to like her. Your sympathies are naturally drawn to whoever her opponent happens to be."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/02/starmer-tearful-chancellor-rachel-reeves-pmqs

As I said, I think Reeves is done. But the beneficiary will not be Badenoch or the Tories. The drift of the Labour last time voters to Reform will speed up - the Tories failed them, Labour failed them, vote for something else.

The days of Starmer/Reeves are numbered now. The only question now is when the regime change happens.

Commeth the hour, commeth the Angela, and Labour's fortunes revive....

Thing is, Starmer ran on CHANGE.

RochdalePioneers said:

Just catching up. For me there are two truths:

1) The misogyny in British politics is appalling. They have attacked Reeves from day 1 as a woman - how dare she be appointed Chancellor! I have little doubt that politics at that level can be an emotional roller-coaster and some people are emotional beings.

I cried in a senior leadership meeting because the situation was that fraught. I can imagine me crying in a situation like that, or when Theresa May quit. As a bloke I get sympathy, but women get none. "too emotional" - how many times does that get added as a label to a colleague just because they are a woman?

That being said

2) Reeves is absolutely done. If she has something upsetting going on in her personal life then my sympathies - don't get her sat in the spotlight blubbing. A failing of the management team letting her sit there. If that's just cover then its my sexist patronising guff.

Problem is that she is Chancellor of the Exchequer and needs to be robust enough to face down critics and the markets and opposition idiots. Crying doesn't work. And she can't recover - even if she goes on in the role she will always be the chancellor reduced to tears as her boss fails to defend her position.

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

There is no money in stream revenue for regular artists these days. Festivals and big US Arena tours are where the money to make a proper living are.

What you need to do is be edgy but not be dropped by your record label / management. RATM managed to stay on Sony for instance. Winning all the way to the bank.

I think Bob Vylan will be laughing all the way to the bank. There's no such thing as bad publicity for such an act.

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Before the PB Tories think that today was a triumph for their side, it wasn't. As John Crace notes: "The thing with Kemi is that her manner is so off-putting. That weird sense of superiority when she has so little to be superior about. The arrogance and the condescension. The perpetual sneer. The feeling she is permanently doing the rest of us a favour. All of which makes it hard to like her. Your sympathies are naturally drawn to whoever her opponent happens to be."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/02/starmer-tearful-chancellor-rachel-reeves-pmqs

As I said, I think Reeves is done. But the beneficiary will not be Badenoch or the Tories. The drift of the Labour last time voters to Reform will speed up - the Tories failed them, Labour failed them, vote for something else.

John Crace = the Guardian's Lord Haw Haw.

After the last couple of days the Conservatives are back. And you know it.

What’s also abundantly clear, the LibDems have absolutely blown their opportunity. They offer nothing in the House of Commons - no presence, no interesting or workable solutions. Just a parish council grouping.

In what way are the Tories back?

I will keep patiently making the same point - your lot utterly blew it. We’re seeing Labour’s reputation crumble and chaos ensue. You think people will see this and think “let’s put back on the party who made chaos what it is”? The party who so utterly fucked the economy and services that everything is broken?

The winners here are Reform. Go look at the polls.

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

Probably fine so long as they do not openly support them from now on (assuming this was not some kind of 'principle' reason against proscription).

RochdalePioneers said:

MoonRabbit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Before the PB Tories think that today was a triumph for their side, it wasn't. As John Crace notes: "The thing with Kemi is that her manner is so off-putting. That weird sense of superiority when she has so little to be superior about. The arrogance and the condescension. The perpetual sneer. The feeling she is permanently doing the rest of us a favour. All of which makes it hard to like her. Your sympathies are naturally drawn to whoever her opponent happens to be."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/02/starmer-tearful-chancellor-rachel-reeves-pmqs

As I said, I think Reeves is done. But the beneficiary will not be Badenoch or the Tories. The drift of the Labour last time voters to Reform will speed up - the Tories failed them, Labour failed them, vote for something else.

John Crace = the Guardian's Lord Haw Haw.

After the last couple of days the Conservatives are back. And you know it.

What’s also abundantly clear, the LibDems have absolutely blown their opportunity. They offer nothing in the House of Commons - no presence, no interesting or workable solutions. Just a parish council grouping.

In what way are the Tories back?

I will keep patiently making the same point - your lot utterly blew it. We’re seeing Labour’s reputation crumble and chaos ensue. You think people will see this and think “let’s put back on the party who made chaos what it is”? The party who so utterly fucked the economy and services that everything is broken?

The winners here are Reform. Go look at the polls.

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

That's part of the problem with 'edgyness' of course, it's so easy to then fake or phone in to please or outrage the people you want.

It's akin to the pathetic displays boxers engage in with stare offs and stage managed 'rows' before fights to drive up interest, which is like watching WWE monologues without the charisma or honesty.

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

There is no money in stream revenue for regular artists these days. Festivals and big US Arena tours are where the money to make a proper living are.

What you need to do is be edgy but not be dropped by your record label / management. RATM managed to stay on Sony for instance. Winning all the way to the bank.

I think Bob Vylan will be laughing all the way to the bank. There's no such thing as bad publicity for such an act.

You can still go too far to maximise your money, and up just milking a smaller group of extreme weirdos (any number of media and youtube personalities and commentators have gone that route), but given a lot of people hadn't even heard of him until this incident I'd assume he is a long way from crossing the line from benefit to harm.

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

Probably fine so long as they do not openly support them from now on (assuming this was not some kind of 'principle' reason against proscription).

Well Sultana shouted out 'we are all Palestine Action' in the debate (albeit shes already dewhipped but still a party member)
I get the impression the hard-core left are goading SKS into trying to expel them

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

There is no money in stream revenue for regular artists these days. Festivals and big US Arena tours are where the money to make a proper living are.

What you need to do is walk the line between being edgy but not be dropped by your record label / management. RATM managed to stay on Sony for instance. Winning all the way to the bank.

williamglenn said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

Norwegian TV seems obsessed with their team having a British manager. Let’s hope it brings them some good fortune…

Would they fancy a British Prime Minister do we think? Nearly new, priced for a quick sale, no refunds?

Kåre Tölmakersson?

MaxPB said:

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.

Malmesbury said:

a

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

There is no money in stream revenue for regular artists these days. Festivals and big US Arena tours are where the money to make a proper living are.

What you need to do is walk the line between being edgy but not be dropped by your record label / management. RATM managed to stay on Sony for instance. Winning all the way to the bank.

RATM had a real, actual cause. See the long record of US policing, for example.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Just catching up. For me there are two truths:

1) The misogyny in British politics is appalling. They have attacked Reeves from day 1 as a woman - how dare she be appointed Chancellor! I have little doubt that politics at that level can be an emotional roller-coaster and some people are emotional beings.

I cried in a senior leadership meeting because the situation was that fraught. I can imagine me crying in a situation like that, or when Theresa May quit. As a bloke I get sympathy, but women get none. "too emotional" - how many times does that get added as a label to a colleague just because they are a woman?

That being said

2) Reeves is absolutely done. If she has something upsetting going on in her personal life then my sympathies - don't get her sat in the spotlight blubbing. A failing of the management team letting her sit there. If that's just cover then its my sexist patronising guff.

Problem is that she is Chancellor of the Exchequer and needs to be robust enough to face down critics and the markets and opposition idiots. Crying doesn't work. And she can't recover - even if she goes on in the role she will always be the chancellor reduced to tears as her boss fails to defend her position.

Sorry mysogyny is a feeble excuse, I would have said Reeves is crap if it was a man, a woman, black, white or even martian.

Fed up with this bollocks "you only criticise because its "woman/man/black/white/trans". Most criticise politicians because of what they say and do not because of gender, creed or colour. Now if someone has made prior mysognist chitterings by all mean point them out and speculate maybe

Luckyguy1983 said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

Not 'very Labour' at all. But my lifelong adherence to One Nation Toryism in the tradition of Burke's small 'c' conservatism doesn't have a party to stand up for it, so Labour is the best of a bad job for the moment.

While what I want is a trad Tory revival, what there is is what I am going to get.

As all politics is relative, the search is on for a potential government less awful that the current one, which has disappointed its long term friends probably even more than those like me who lent it their vote.

Current score:
LDs don't count as they can't win more than 100 seats unless there is a paradigm shift.
Tories have not yet established that they are serious.
Reform could gain power if they have a pact but no-one at all, including their voters think they have a serious plan for serious times.

Next government: Probably Labour led.
Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.

Classic Tory centrist - demand loyalty from the right wing loonies when there's a centrist leader, bugger off to another party when there isn't.

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

We have evidence labour also cant govern either competently or seriously over the last year so also a waste of time voting for them

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

boulay said:

wooliedyed said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

Her predecessor was Anneliese Dodds so a low bar one might argue. Whatever you may think of Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown, they weren't afraid to come out swinging for their policies.

Labour just doesn't seem to have an "Iron Chancellor" type - it's one thing doing the prawn cocktail circuit before the election but quite another to sit in No.11 and take the hard decisions

Starmer and Reeves should have held fast on WFP and this, but they were frit and are now paying the price

Listening to labour mps, it seems they want to move to the left and would welcome Starmer and Reeves leaving office

The debate yesterday was a revelation with the left in full vocal opposition to the PIP proposals, and after today's astonishing PMQs they must be on manoeuvres and scent blood

And yea out of the desert there came a man and his name was Jezza.

Cant be too long until he's back in the fold.

His fans will be so disappointed, they've wanted him to form his own party for so long and he hasn't yet done it even after leaving Labour.

Hes 'in discussions' apparently and says a new party will be up and running by next years locals. Too slow. He needs to start it, get the likes of Sultana, Whittome etc on board, then hand over once its established cos hes too old now.
If he cant see right now is optimum hes even more of a daft old goat than i thought

He could hire Bobby Vylan as party spokesman - going to be looking for a new career now anyway and the basic level political sloganeering and capturing the Glastonbury vote is aligned.

I think Bobby Vylan has had a major increase in streams since the weekend. For an edgy musician you just can't buy that sort of publicity, just ask Bill Grundy.

There is no money in stream revenue for regular artists these days. Festivals and big US Arena tours are where the money to make a proper living are.

What you need to do is be edgy but not be dropped by your record label / management. RATM managed to stay on Sony for instance. Winning all the way to the bank.

I think Bob Vylan will be laughing all the way to the bank. There's no such thing as bad publicity for such an act.

You can still go too far to maximise your money, and up just milking a smaller group of extreme weirdos (any number of media and youtube personalities and commentators have gone that route), but given a lot of people hadn't even heard of him until this incident I'd assume he is a long way from crossing the line from benefit to harm.

Trying to DIY music is really really hard these days. No money in physical sales, no money in streams all the ticketing is owned by one company as are most of the venues. If you aren't doing the massive festivals / arenas you need to be constantly giging. See a Halestorm, Shinedown or Black Stone Cherry who are 1000x bigger than Ranty McRanty face and I have heard them all say only way to make a decent living, outside festivals, 200 gigs a year. Going on an antisemitic rant aimed at one of the biggest promoters / organisers in the business seems very unwise.

If you notice Kneecap stick to fuck the Tories, the British were bad in Ireland, but never go after individuals in the industry.

Pagan2 said:

Here is a good suggestion for public finances

Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.

I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

We have evidence labour also cant govern either competently or seriously over the last year so also a waste of time voting for them

All politics being relative the question is not whether Labour are good - no-one thinks they are - but which party is least worst for the country. I don't think the competition as between Tory, Reform and Labour is all that severe. Labour are least worst, Tory have it all to do, Reform aren't in the competence stakes race.

Pagan2 said:

Here is a good suggestion for public finances

Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.

I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year

wooliedyed said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is a good suggestion for public finances

Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.

I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year

It would bring nothing in, once you get anywhere near a pot generating 20k a year you invest it elsewhere into income generating products that are not 'pensions'

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…

I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…

I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.

I didn’t say you voted for the Tories. I live outside the LabCon binary world- I’m a LibDem. But electoral it’s been one and then the other.

Simple truth - whilst Labour are in power, the mess we are in predates them winning the election 12 months ago. So the idea that we just blame them and therefore the LabCon cycle flips again is just daft - people are sick of it. Hence the rise of the Farage

Dopermean said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

I hope Ed Davey and his team are putting together some serious and practical plans.
After all, next time it’s either them or Reform.

They're not. They're not serious at all. One of the many good parts about Kemi's excellent PMQs was that she called out all the other parties for not supporting welfare reform.

To think, when Starmer did his bleating 'I'm a lovable lefty really' u-turn on his Enoch tribute speech, I really thought things couldn't get any better for Kemi this week - but little did I know.

She had the most golden opportunity any LOTO will ever have to be honest, but boy did she stick it in the net.

But the Tories don't support welfare reform either. Performative cruelty to disabled people is not welfare reform.

Labour's original bill was cruel to genuinely disabled people, because it simply top-sliced £5bn off everyone in a completely arbitrary way. The Tories are in favour of reforming the system so that the genuinely disabled are protected, and those with very low level mental conditions that would actually be helped by work (not to mention those just ripping the piss) are encouraged into work. Unless you believe that one in four people is genuinely disabled, that is what any sensible person or party should support.

They were in power up until 2024, what stopped them.

ohnotnow said:

numbertwelve said:

I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.

Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.

I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.

But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.

kinabalu said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

FPT

Nigelb said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

We’re heading for an IMF moment, aren’t we?

No, because:

a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us
b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough.
c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference
d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments
e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.

The point of bringing in the IMF is to be able to blame an outside actor for forcing the inevitable but highly unpopular corrective action.

If you have a government with insufficient stones to do that for themselves, then it is a benefit to the country, on balance.

That only works if the government can argue that bringing in the IMF was essential because they need a huge foreign currency loan, which as I have argued they can't.

It just about worked in the much more deferential world of the 1970s, when floating exchange rates were new and the difference between them and the fixed rate regime of Bretton Woods wasn't really understood.

It won't work at all in the world of the 2020s, where we trust the political and business elite much less and there's no credible reason for us to take on such a loan - unless maybe we commit the ultimate idiocy of joining the EU and the Euro, but fortunately we've just about avoided that.

I'm afraid there's no shortcut or quick fix from Washington or anywhere else - we need a government that commits to implementing economic policies that work in the medium to long term, backed by a plurality of the electorate that supports them. The IMF won't get us there - even if their program works (and lots of theirs haven't), it wouldn't be legitimate and would soon be unwound.

And one of the lessons of this fiasco is that the whole damn country is still at the "cut spending, raise taxes, but do them in a way that doesn't hurt me" stage. We all (sort of) know what needs to be done, but I don't think the political rhetoric to persuade us to thank a government that does it exists. So we blame the politicians for not providing leadership that we are willing to deign to follow.

If you disagree, if you think there is a form of words that works, then excellent. The role of national saviour is yours.

Yes, this is a bad episode but I do find all
the "we need a vision and a narrative and a sense of where we're going bla bla" to be meaningless mantra speak. We don't need that at all. We need good policies to make the country a little bit better than it would be without them. And we need to align expectations with what is reasonably achievable.

algarkirk said:

wooliedyed said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.

I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first

IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers

In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.

It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.

So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.

wooliedyed said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is a good suggestion for public finances

Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.

I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year

It would bring nothing in, once you get anywhere near a pot generating 20k a year you invest it elsewhere into income generating products that are not 'pensions'

numbertwelve said:

ohnotnow said:

numbertwelve said:

I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.

Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.

I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.

But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.

PMQs isn’t the time for conviction. It’s the time for getting your soundbites in and boosting backbench morale. She did exactly what she needed to today, and she did it pretty well I thought. And I think she’s been utterly rubbish in about 80% of her appearances (of the other 20%, I’d say some have been ‘ok’ and the rest have been poor).

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

We have evidence labour also cant govern either competently or seriously over the last year so also a waste of time voting for them

All politics being relative the question is not whether Labour are good - no-one thinks they are - but which party is least worst for the country. I don't think the competition as between Tory, Reform and Labour is all that severe. Labour are least worst, Tory have it all to do, Reform aren't in the competence stakes race.

Sorry don't agree labour so far have taken a tough situation and made it worse....if the country was a man up to his neck in quick sand they have put their foot on his head and pushing downwards.

Thanks, but you forgot to mention which of the three was your least worst, and like Monty Hall in the paradox you have left two boxes to choose from, Tory or Reform. (I think there's a goat behind them both).

I don't disagree that Labour have made it worse. The contest is not for excelling excellence; the contest is for least worst.

viewcode said:

Apple TV are making a film/limited series of "Neuromancer". I have no idea if it's a good idea or bad idea. If they f**k it up as badly as they did "Foundation", I will be very sad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJBnlZKgeUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCLRaB1IL38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs6wSl-2ILo

Dopermean said:

Pagan2 said:

wooliedyed said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is a good suggestion for public finances

Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.

I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year

It would bring nothing in, once you get anywhere near a pot generating 20k a year you invest it elsewhere into income generating products that are not 'pensions'

I suspect if you looked at the split of +20k pensions a year you would find well over 50% of them are in the public sector. I have worked all my life and mostly been above median wage for most of that and I can assure you I am getting no where near 20k a year when I retire

Yes it'll be DB schemes, it's not a well kept secret, decent pension is one of the selling points for public sector recruitment.
Only people that should be complaining are the more recently recruited public sector workers who won't get what they were sold.
Anyone else could have made the choice to be public sector or made bigger contributions.

MaxPB said:

algarkirk said:

wooliedyed said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

From Sky News tonight

On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."

Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.

You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward

It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week

Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.

I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first

IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers

In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.

It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.

So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.

I think by the time we reach the election Reform will be comfortably ahead of both the Tories and Labour in the low 30s, enough to get a majority alone. Labour are in huge trouble, having to deal with hard left MPs that won't get in line to vote for their agenda and about to be eviscerated by the markets for lumping their policy failures onto the national credit card. Last time Rishi was able to stabilise the situation by undoing most of what Truss had announced, who's going to save Labour? They will be forced to implement swingeing cuts that they will need to rely on the kindness of opposition MPs to get through. It's going to be a bruising 4 years and I think Labour will be out of power for a generation after this election.

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…

I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.

I didn’t say you voted for the Tories. I live outside the LabCon binary world- I’m a LibDem. But electoral it’s been one and then the other.

Simple truth - whilst Labour are in power, the mess we are in predates them winning the election 12 months ago. So the idea that we just blame them and therefore the LabCon cycle flips again is just daft - people are sick of it. Hence the rise of the Farage

lib dems though are just undecideds in labour or tory clothing as it suits them

@Pagan2 this is nonsense. I have been a liberal all my life. I am neither a Tory nor a Socialist and would vote for neither. Being a liberal is a distinct philosophy.

You belong to a party thats whole point is to go into coalition with which ever party will let a couple of you have ministerial cars.....as was proven in 2010....sorry you appear to lack any legs to stand on

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…

I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.

I didn’t say you voted for the Tories. I live outside the LabCon binary world- I’m a LibDem. But electoral it’s been one and then the other.

Simple truth - whilst Labour are in power, the mess we are in predates them winning the election 12 months ago. So the idea that we just blame them and therefore the LabCon cycle flips again is just daft - people are sick of it. Hence the rise of the Farage

lib dems though are just undecideds in labour or tory clothing as it suits them

@Pagan2 this is nonsense. I have been a liberal all my life. I am neither a Tory nor a Socialist and would vote for neither. Being a liberal is a distinct philosophy.

You belong to a party thats whole point is to go into coalition with which ever party will let a couple of you have ministerial cars.....as was proven in 2010....sorry you appear to lack any legs to stand on

kjh said:

Pagan2 said:

kjh said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

boulay said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.

But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?

I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.

It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:

https://x.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1836402604689236420/

Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed

And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears

My diminished sympathy has vanished

That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”

I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.

So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.

There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.

On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.

currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse

Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.

We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks

We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.

Not at all

The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.

Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.

OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.

Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…

I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.

I didn’t say you voted for the Tories. I live outside the LabCon binary world- I’m a LibDem. But electoral it’s been one and then the other.

Simple truth - whilst Labour are in power, the mess we are in predates them winning the election 12 months ago. So the idea that we just blame them and therefore the LabCon cycle flips again is just daft - people are sick of it. Hence the rise of the Farage

lib dems though are just undecideds in labour or tory clothing as it suits them

@Pagan2 this is nonsense. I have been a liberal all my life. I am neither a Tory nor a Socialist and would vote for neither. Being a liberal is a distinct philosophy.

You belong to a party thats whole point is to go into coalition with which ever party will let a couple of you have ministerial cars.....as was proven in 2010....sorry you appear to lack any legs to stand on

This is utter nonsense. I have been a liberal for over 50 years. Do you really think what you just said can therefore be true? Or that maybe there are some real principles behind it.

If what you said were true for any of us we would have joined Labour or the Conservatives. If what you said was true why have we made it so more difficult for ourselves. This is just a bizarre view because you have a hang up about the LDs.

It makes no sense.

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

MaxPB said:

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.

Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.

Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.

StillWaters said:

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

MaxPB said:

wooliedyed said:

9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament.
Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time

This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.

Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.

Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.

Really? HIPs…

She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful