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

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

Frank_Booth said:

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

Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.

Pagan2 said:

Frank_Booth said:

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

Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.

Not obviously mad...yet introduced hips....sorry are you sure here?

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.

tlg86 said:

Sky News leading with Diddy. What the?

Andy_JS said:

On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.

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'

Pagan2 said:

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.

As I said I am not impugning yourself. I have no doubt you have principles. However I doubt your party does, nor for that matter do I imagine any of the others do. The lib dems will happily sell themselves to the highest bidder as I am sure will labour or tories if it comes to it

FrancisUrquhart said:

The former head of the Royal Navy has had his service terminated following an investigation into his behaviour, the Ministry of Defence has said.

Cookie said:

Luckyguy1983 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.

Hahahah - pull the other one.

Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.

This is what they say this week:

https://www.youtube.com/live/a94xC5Oa1xc?si=-q6yjJ769-7Z8Esf&t=34m30s

"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)

"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)

"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)

Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.

I thought Kemi did well when I watched it. I thought the bit about the Tories being the only party in favour of fiscal responsibility was good.
Which may sound like chutzpah. But the stock of everyone else in this regard has fallen so far in the past 12 months that the Tories look like models of fiscal probity by comparison.

wooliedyed said:

algarkirk said:

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.

Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.

Baxter for example:
Lab 28
Ref and Con 22 each
LD 14.

This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.

Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more

Stereodog said:

wooliedyed said:

algarkirk said:

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.

Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.

Baxter for example:
Lab 28
Ref and Con 22 each
LD 14.

This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.

Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more

Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.

Stereodog said:

wooliedyed said:

algarkirk said:

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.

Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.

Baxter for example:
Lab 28
Ref and Con 22 each
LD 14.

This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.

Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more

Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.

numbertwelve said:

I see Keir has been in front of Nick Robinson to try and dig himself out the Reeves situation.

She’ll now be Chancellor for a long time to come.

We all know how long SKS’s positions last, so I wonder if he’ll regret saying that in a few weeks’ time like his other pronouncements?

Listening to him, you just realise his credibility is shot. He desperately needs a few successes to turn the page.

wooliedyed said:

Now Starmer has shackled himself to Reeves again we will see tomorrow if the bond markets are truly relieved she is staying

Nigelb said:

Another pitiful display from the US media.

Paramount bends to Trump: 5 takeaways on ’60 Minutes’ settlement
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5382044-paramount-trump-lawsuit-cbs-news-60-minutes-harris-interview-fcc-skydance-merger/

They should simply have Pressdramed him.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.

By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.

Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.

moonshine said:

wooliedyed said:

Now Starmer has shackled himself to Reeves again we will see tomorrow if the bond markets are truly relieved she is staying

That witch has given me numerous sleepless nights in the last year. Hopefully she lingers on to prolong her misery.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.

By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.

Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.

Malmesbury said:

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

Their Molly isn’t looking good. Excerpts so far have her talking too much, the glasses look wrong. And she isn’t brutally efficient.

Steppin’ Razor she should be.

Northern_Al said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.

By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.

Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.

I don't think your last paragraph is accurate at all - Labour didn't for one moment pretend it could "magically fix" everything - if anything, they over-emphasised how hard it would be to 'turn the page'. For example, this is part of the foreword to the 2024 GE manifesto:

We must rebuild our country. It will not be easy. Not only because there is no quick fix to the mess the Conservatives have made. But also, because their failures have sapped our collective confidence that Britain can still achieve great things.

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Christ on a bike...

Figma makes $220m a year in revenue
Figma spends $110m a year on AWS

Jeff Bezos spends $55m on his wedding

FrancisUrquhart said:

wooliedyed said:

Heh, after our Corbyn discussions earlier he confirms on Peston a new party combining his group and indies of socialist persuasion across the country is coming

At this rate there will be 20 political parties standing at the next GE and all of them being shit.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Christ on a bike...

Figma makes $220m a year in revenue
Figma spends $110m a year on AWS

I know lots of businesses - including one I founded - where the AWS bill is more than half of revenue.

wooliedyed said:

Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page

GIN1138 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

fitalass said:

wooliedyed said:

Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page

You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?

Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).

I suspect Big Ange - if she does become leader and PM - will be like Loopy Lizzie - Gone within a couple of months.

Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.

Remember, Labour are ending the chaos! 😂

StillWaters said:

Nigelb said:

Another pitiful display from the US media.

Paramount bends to Trump: 5 takeaways on ’60 Minutes’ settlement
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5382044-paramount-trump-lawsuit-cbs-news-60-minutes-harris-interview-fcc-skydance-merger/

They should simply have Pressdramed him.

The FCC would then have turned down their sale to Skymedia and probably terminated Paramount’s broadcast license for good measure.

When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend

Cicero said:

StillWaters said:

Nigelb said:

Another pitiful display from the US media.

Paramount bends to Trump: 5 takeaways on ’60 Minutes’ settlement
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5382044-paramount-trump-lawsuit-cbs-news-60-minutes-harris-interview-fcc-skydance-merger/

They should simply have Pressdramed him.

The FCC would then have turned down their sale to Skymedia and probably terminated Paramount’s broadcast license for good measure.

When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend

The increasingly unstable legal foundations for business in the USA is a major reason that we can expect considerable turbulence in the financial markets. US assets are being discounted as it is, but sometime in the coming months investors will lose patience and substantially and permanently down grade the entire USD asset base.
The big bullshit bill undermines property rights for those that do not buy in to the MAGA world view. All it would take now is a big liquidity call, like the impact of a serious Japanese earthquake and investors could be discounting US assets by 20-30% in very short order. Trump is laying the seeds of his own destruction, but it is not clear that once confidence in the integrity of American business is lost, it can be recovered.
Boeing, for example, has been accused of a corrupt relationship with the FAA and is now increasingly facing competition, not just from Airbus, but new competition from around the world. Trust, once lost, may never be recovered. The fall of the American century may be a whole lot closer than we think.
All the more reason for the UK to rethink our own strategic dependence on the US and take a hard nosed and long term view of our own interests. Farage may want a closer alignment with the US, but the equivocal relationship of Trump with Putin is a clear and present danger to our own national interests.

MattW 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.

I've argued that Labour got this one wrong, but I think the idea that the Conservatives would do benefit reform sensibly is risible - they had a shot at one part of that (UC) under IDS, and Osborne and Cameron wrecked it for short term savings.

Nor would they give a damn for disabled people under the current leadership. If they gave a damn we would have seen 101 little injustices and inconsistencies resolved over the last 15 years, and little or nothing has happened.

The most recent prominent example was ticket office closure to save some money, when disabled groups were not consulted and they attempted to pass it off as an initiative of Network Rail. Equally, last time they did Reform around Work Capacity Assessment they introduced a massive bureaucracy run by low skilled staff - anyone who knows those who have been through the system is aware of that.

This is one reason I left the Conservative Party, and I see no reason why I would go back whilst it is run by cynical, headless chickens.

Frank_Booth said:

If all these activists and artists really cared about Palestine wouldn't they seek to learn more about it?

eek said:

Andy_JS said:

On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.

Edinburgh was because of a suicide on the track

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Will Rayner be Labour's Truss?

Hard to say.
The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.

I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?

Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Will Rayner be Labour's Truss?

Hard to say.
The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.

I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?

Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.

Blair had a similar one in 1997 - 47 backbenchers rebelling against welfare reforms and another 100 abstaining, including two resignations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/38656.stm

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Will Rayner be Labour's Truss?

Hard to say.
The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.

I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?

Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.

Blair had a similar one in 1997 - 47 backbenchers rebelling against welfare reforms and another 100 abstaining, including two resignations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/38656.stm

..Because of Labour's large majority in the House of Commons, the Government managed to win all votes comfortably.

Labour's chief whip, Nick Brown, will now start the process of interviewing the rebels face to face. Observers say that in effect he will be giving them the yellow card and warning them that any further disobedience will not be tolerated...

Good recall, but not really comparable, other than the subject of the revolt, as that detail makes obvious.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Will Rayner be Labour's Truss?

Hard to say.
The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.

I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?

Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.

If you win with the Ming Vase, you're stuck and have to keep carrying it.