You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
We just gave our kids my name, which is a bit patriarchal I suppose (fuck the patriarchy as Taylor Swift would say). My wife was OK with it as she has two brothers who have passed on the name. I think there's still some logic in the idea of the surname indicating patrilineage, as matrilieage is always clearer through the act of childbirth.
An ultra-feminist friend of mine has had multiple names. She started life with her fathers name, switched to her husbands name on marriage, but after a few years decided that this was an endorsement of the patriarchy. Reverting to her maiden name seemed illogical, as this was simply her father's name. Similarly her mothers maiden name was her maternal grandfather's name, and so on. She therefore chose her own surname (which was a bit of a pun).
She has kept this name professionally as a university professor, but now uses her maiden name on social media, in large part to make her postings less visible to people searching under her professional name.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
We didn't change our names. Couldn't be bothered with it. Writing to dozens and dozens of organizations etc to get the new name set up!
Ditto, although I think it is common for Doctors to keep their maiden name, but primarily we couldn't be bothered. My Sister-In-law, did change her name, but kept her maiden name as her stage name. Utterly confusing. Although common for actors to have a different name (Equity and all of that) it wasn't necessary on marriage to change her name generating the confusion as her stage name was her maiden name, so all unnecessary.
My granddaughter-in-law has double-barrelled her name for work purposes, but her husband (my grandson) hasn't. Their child just has his father's name.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Powell too doesn't use her husbands name.
Changing name on marriage is a bit old school nowadays.
There’s the slightly nouv double barrelling thing. I imagine there are tiffs over which comes first.
We thought about doing that with our daughter (No we're not married) but two two syllable words akin to bungle boulder n a row is a bit of a mouthful
We just gave our kids my name, which is a bit patriarchal I suppose (fuck the patriarchy as Taylor Swift would say). My wife was OK with it as she has two brothers who have passed on the name. I think there's still some logic in the idea of the surname indicating patrilineage, as matrilieage is always clearer through the act of childbirth.
An ultra-feminist friend of mine has had multiple names. She started life with her fathers name, switched to her husbands name on marriage, but after a few years decided that this was an endorsement of the patriarchy. Reverting to her maiden name seemed illogical, as this was simply her father's name. Similarly her mothers maiden name was her maternal grandfather's name, and so on. She therefore chose her own surname (which was a bit of a pun).
She has kept this name professionally as a university professor, but now uses her maiden name on social media, in large part to make her postings less visible to people searching under her professional name.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Well you would know all about being wrong, wouldn't you Roger😁😁😁
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
Or he didn't think Kirk was far enough to the Right?
I trawled through pages of this debate on here from last night. The facts seem to be that his family was staunchly republican, he became increasingly leftist / anti maga.
On topic, my favourite Lucy Powell quote is the EdStone one where she said “ I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that the fact he’s carved them into stone means he’s absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”
She has a habit of foot-in-mouth syndrome and is usually a gift for her opponents.
I suspect she will win, simply by dint of not being in the cabinet.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Are you saying your role on PB's is similar to Dan Hodges?
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
If the killer was indeed registered as a Democrat, I'm sure we will hear about it by Monday. Has anyone called him an incel yet? That's another one that is often thrown around.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
Or he didn't think Kirk was far enough to the Right?
I trawled through pages of this debate on here from last night. The facts seem to be that his family was staunchly republican, he became increasingly leftist / anti maga.
He is alive, so presumably will get his day in court, but I see no evidence of a falling out with his family politically. Indeed he dropped out of University after one term in order to go home.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
If the killer was indeed registered as a Democrat, I'm sure we will hear about it by Monday. Has anyone called him an incel yet? That's another one that is often thrown around.
There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.
The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking
And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).
However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.
I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.
I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.
The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.
He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.
He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.
I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.
These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.
The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.
The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.
Yup. We don't really know what we want (beyond fantasies about pure upside with zero downside) but we know what we don't want (anything on offer). And social media means we don't want it more loudly than ever. If Burnham somehow becomes PM, I'm confident that he will become as unpopular as the others have as rapidly as the others did.
Sacking the manager of a struggling football club rarely leads to a sustained improvement. The problems are usually much deeper than that.
Interesting analogy - the fans of a club want their team to win every match but no team does that. Both England's football and cricket teams regularly go from being the greatest that has ever stepped on a pitch to being the worst in the history of the sport over a period of a few days (and then back again).
Farage will discover all this if and when he becomes Prime Minister (as would Badenoch or Davey in that more unlikely event). To be fair, even some of the apparently staunch supporters of Reform on here have conceded the party in Government would become very unpopular very quickly.
There is a truth radical Governments trying to do radical things get very unpopular - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher all discovered that - but it's worse when you have a Government apparently doing nothing. A radical Government will in time see the benefits of its legislation and can show these to the public (whether the public like them or not is another question).
If you do nothing, you have nothing to show for it - arguably, that's where Starmer's administration is going to end up.
I now believe Starmer never actually wanted to do much, anyway. He’s not an especially political man. He’s not driven by “politics”
He’s a public sector lawyer
He wanted to come in and enjoy the perks of being PM and do some high profile left wing or progressive things (Chagos, assisted dying) then reap the applause and that’s it. He certainly didn’t want to massively change the country because the country, as it is, really works for people like him. Highly paid public sector wonks
I would put it differently but I think that's quite insightful.
I think he saw the platform of PM as a place to solve what he saw as the 'big problems of the world'. I suspect the actual big problems for this country: crumbling schools, creaking NHS, cost of living don't move him that much.
Or, perhaps, they do move him but he just has no idea what to do about them. I think he could have been an excellent PM in about 2001, when there was more money around.
What makes for an excellent PM? Is it their personal qualities, or is it just being in the right place at the right time? Probably a bit of both, but which is the bigger factor?
Part of my theory of British politics is that the climate doesn't let anyone really thrive in the job. And partly due to that, we get party leaders who certainly shouldn't have taken the job on when they did, if at all.
Starmer got the Labour leadership by being the least implausible man standing in 2020 and 2024. (Go on, try and name the truly adequate alternative that he overcame. A shiny sixpence says you can't.)
Sunak was much the same. Maybe he would have been good with a few more years under his belt. Truss should have not got anywhere near the top. Johnson forced his way into Downing Street by force of will, but was a disaster. May was kind of the post-2016 version of Starmer. And then we're back to Cameron.
The courage to take necessary but controversial decisions without agonising about them for a couple of years must be up there.
Having the judgment to work out what's necessary comes into it - but this government already knows some of those things (radical planning reform, or a broad increase in general taxation at the start of this parliament, for example), and has avoided grasping the nettle.
Basic competence allied with decisiveness, then ?
Conversely, the Tories consistently failed on the former.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
If the killer was indeed registered as a Democrat, I'm sure we will hear about it by Monday. Has anyone called him an incel yet? That's another one that is often thrown around.
He’s unaffiliated so no party preference.
Can you be registered as, for example, a Green in the US?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Are you saying your role on PB's is similar to Dan Hodges?
I think I was the first to say Mandy was going to be out. An uncharacteristically correct call which just about puts me on a par with Dan
I’ve had a fun morning. I witnessed an “elaborate” van theft on our street.
Van 1 zooms into a parking space (that I was about to park in, the bastard). Driver gets out and runs up the road.
Van 2 draws up alongside my parked car, and gets out to do a delivery. Driver of van 1 and his accomplice (I didn’t see this bit) attacks van 2 delivery man and grabs his keys, then one of the miscreants jumps back into van 1 and screeches away, the other jumps into van 2 and nicks it, the owner running after it shouting “call the police”.
So I’ve been sitting in the back of a police car for the first time ever, giving a statement.
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Are you saying your role on PB's is similar to Dan Hodges?
I think I was the first to say Mandy was going to be out. An uncharacteristically correct call which just about puts me on a par with Dan
It must be a near unique issue, then, as it united you, Leon and me pretty well at the same time.
I don't approve of comments making light of anyone's death but I thought that American rightwingers were free speech absolutists. Why would they be firing people who say things they don't like if they believe in free speech and oppose cancel culture?
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
This may be an example of the phenomenon whereby friends and neighbours disavow knowledge of the criminal, leading to observations like "he was quiet and kept himself to himself".
I think the speculation is ill-advised. If he committed murder (and remember this is still sub judice), then he's repulsive regardless of his views. It doesn't prove anything. There are certainly lunatics at all point of the political spectrum, and I've no intention of defending someone who I might agree with on something but who pursues it with murder.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Are you saying your role on PB's is similar to Dan Hodges?
I think I was the first to say Mandy was going to be out. An uncharacteristically correct call which just about puts me on a par with Dan
It must be a near unique issue, then, as it united you, Leon and me pretty well at the same time.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
Or he didn't think Kirk was far enough to the Right?
I trawled through pages of this debate on here from last night. The facts seem to be that his family was staunchly republican, he became increasingly leftist / anti maga.
He is alive, so presumably will get his day in court, but I see no evidence of a falling out with his family politically. Indeed he dropped out of University after one term in order to go home.
Most functioning families do not fall out just because different members vote differently. I am just going with the multiple sources to a diverse range of publications that he became increasingly political and pro left / anti maga. It’s a little bizarre that this is getting as much push back on here that it is
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
Labour does not have confidence votes in its leader like the Conservative Party uses (see the exits of Thatcher, May and Truss) to replace its Prime Ministers without bringing down the government.
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
Or he didn't think Kirk was far enough to the Right?
I trawled through pages of this debate on here from last night. The facts seem to be that his family was staunchly republican, he became increasingly leftist / anti maga.
Ah yes, the facts as you want to see them.
The facts as the left wants to see them is that this was right on right, a squabble between factional degrees of fascism.
We’ll need to wait to see which is correct. I’ve yet to see a clear winner.
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
*prepares details of alibi*
They had the proper canonical look of burglar bill. Just needed some eye patches and stripy tops and a swag bag. Unshaven, probably in their 30s, could imagine them featuring in porridge. Very different from the other archetype of the phone theft teenagers on their bikes with hoodie-covered heads and shifty movements.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 35m The key issue for Keir Starmer is this. Was he aware before PMQs that Mandelson had expressed his support for Epstein after his conviction. If he was, then his expression of confidence in the House was clearly an attempt to mislead the House. And he has to resign.
It's extaordinary that Dan Hodges gets quoted so often. He's the original opportunist and is invariably wrong. People used to quote from Guido until it started attracting the same opprobrium as Mein Kampf might have (deservedly) and posters gave it up
Are you saying your role on PB's is similar to Dan Hodges?
I think I was the first to say Mandy was going to be out. An uncharacteristically correct call which just about puts me on a par with Dan
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
This may be an example of the phenomenon whereby friends and neighbours disavow knowledge of the criminal, leading to observations like "he was quiet and kept himself to himself".
I think the speculation is ill-advised. If he committed murder (and remember this is still sub judice), then he's repulsive regardless of his views. It doesn't prove anything. There are certainly lunatics at all point of the political spectrum, and I've no intention of defending someone who I might agree with on something but who pursues it with murder.
Not only ill-advised but pretty unedifying, particularly as the digging isn't being done because of any suggestion of a cover up, rather just to point at the other side and say see he was actually one of "yours".
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
*prepares details of alibi*
They had the proper canonical look of burglar bill. Just needed some eye patches and stripy tops and a swag bag. Unshaven, probably in their 30s, could imagine them featuring in porridge. Very different from the other archetype of the phone theft teenagers on their bikes with hoodie-covered heads and shifty movements.
Now im sad. The police will say im too old to be one of these particular fat unshaven neer-do-wells
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
This is why it's dangerous to read Wodehouse on a train or while drinking tea.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
I don't approve of comments making light of anyone's death but I thought that American rightwingers were free speech absolutists. Why would they be firing people who say things they don't like if they believe in free speech and oppose cancel culture?
Because for them, free speech is about *their* freedom to say what they want; not the freedom of those with different views to have their speech heard.
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
*prepares details of alibi*
They had the proper canonical look of burglar bill. Just needed some eye patches and stripy tops and a swag bag. Unshaven, probably in their 30s, could imagine them featuring in porridge. Very different from the other archetype of the phone theft teenagers on their bikes with hoodie-covered heads and shifty movements.
Now im sad. The police will say im too old to be one of these particular fat unshaven neer-do-wells
You have, though, encouraged me to switch on and use my razor!
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
Labour does not have confidence votes in its leader like the Conservative Party uses (see the exits of Thatcher, May and Truss) to replace its Prime Ministers without bringing down the government.
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
Truss didn’t face a confidence vote though, did she? Didn’t Graham Brady basically visit her and tell her she had no chance of clinging on so it was better that she went quickly?
I think if Labour MPs wanted to be rid of Starmer they’d be able to force it. Perhaps in a similar way to Johnson (government resignations that snowball to the point that it simply isn’t possible to cling on anymore).
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
*prepares details of alibi*
They had the proper canonical look of burglar bill. Just needed some eye patches and stripy tops and a swag bag. Unshaven, probably in their 30s, could imagine them featuring in porridge. Very different from the other archetype of the phone theft teenagers on their bikes with hoodie-covered heads and shifty movements.
Now im sad. The police will say im too old to be one of these particular fat unshaven neer-do-wells
You have, though, encouraged me to switch on and use my razor!
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.
He's not a Labour member so I don't know why he's so certain about how Labour members such as yourself will vote. Iirc 2024 was his first time voting for Labour and he's very much an outsider to the Labour party.
My read of the race is that the PM is probably pretty comfortable with either of these two winning the membership vote. Neither will offer substantial opposition nor build independent power bases, they are both middle of the road centre left, not that hard left rabble rouser who I think he actually feared making the ballot.
The technical term is guesswork. The slang term is intuition.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
Labour does not have confidence votes in its leader like the Conservative Party uses (see the exits of Thatcher, May and Truss) to replace its Prime Ministers without bringing down the government.
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
Truss didn’t face a confidence vote though, did she? Didn’t Graham Brady basically visit her and tell her she had no chance of clinging on so it was better that she went quickly?
I think if Labour MPs wanted to be rid of Starmer they’d be able to force it. Perhaps in a similar way to Johnson (government resignations that snowball to the point that it simply isn’t possible to cling on anymore).
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
This may be an example of the phenomenon whereby friends and neighbours disavow knowledge of the criminal, leading to observations like "he was quiet and kept himself to himself".
I think the speculation is ill-advised. If he committed murder (and remember this is still sub judice), then he's repulsive regardless of his views. It doesn't prove anything. There are certainly lunatics at all point of the political spectrum, and I've no intention of defending someone who I might agree with on something but who pursues it with murder.
I think most of all he is typical of other school/college shooters in America. Young, white male, gun culture background, down an internet/gamer rabbit hole, academic failure, grudge against his school/college etc.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
Labour does not have confidence votes in its leader like the Conservative Party uses (see the exits of Thatcher, May and Truss) to replace its Prime Ministers without bringing down the government.
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
Truss didn’t face a confidence vote though, did she? Didn’t Graham Brady basically visit her and tell her she had no chance of clinging on so it was better that she went quickly?
I think if Labour MPs wanted to be rid of Starmer they’d be able to force it. Perhaps in a similar way to Johnson (government resignations that snowball to the point that it simply isn’t possible to cling on anymore).
Yeah Truss was literally a Man in Grey Suit visit
Unfortunately she slipped from their grasp as they tried to put on the straitjacket they’d presciently brought with them.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
And PGW made it look so effortless.
I wonder how long it took him to write those books.
You’d think the PM might have worked out by now that his advice is garbage .
The appointment of Imogen Walker, McSweeney’s wife, to assistant whip prompted accusations from some of her colleagues that it was tantamount to a No 10 power grab. “Morgan’s taking over big time”, one told PoliticsHome.
I know it shouldn't matter these days but it seems bonkers more common amongst politicians to have differing surnames in a marriage compared to the general public.
Professional people are much less likely to change names, especially if they married well on in their careers.
A scientist, for instance, would effectively be throwing away all her (usually her) career to date if she changed surnames, and have to start again to some extent. I knew a chap who changed his name in his late twenties back to his birth surname (hated his stepfather's guts or something of the sort) and even today, more than half a centiry later, young colleagues occasionally ask me if X really was the same person as Y.
I wouldn't even risk a double-barrelled name, given the importance of machine retrieval for academic publications and the scoring of credit.
There's an analogous issue for politicians, who have to build up a reputation and kudos (and debts and credits and favours).
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence in the house he is out on his arse, end of. Will Starmer ? He seems much less secure than any previous Labour leader since the war - as he should be.
Labour does not have confidence votes in its leader like the Conservative Party uses (see the exits of Thatcher, May and Truss) to replace its Prime Ministers without bringing down the government.
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
Truss didn’t face a confidence vote though, did she? Didn’t Graham Brady basically visit her and tell her she had no chance of clinging on so it was better that she went quickly?
I think if Labour MPs wanted to be rid of Starmer they’d be able to force it. Perhaps in a similar way to Johnson (government resignations that snowball to the point that it simply isn’t possible to cling on anymore).
Yes, but that is generally true. It is the prospect of losing a confidence vote that triggers resignation. The same was true of Mrs Thatcher and Theresa May.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
This may be an example of the phenomenon whereby friends and neighbours disavow knowledge of the criminal, leading to observations like "he was quiet and kept himself to himself".
I think the speculation is ill-advised. If he committed murder (and remember this is still sub judice), then he's repulsive regardless of his views. It doesn't prove anything. There are certainly lunatics at all point of the political spectrum, and I've no intention of defending someone who I might agree with on something but who pursues it with murder.
@NickPalmer by chance I met Paul Follows last night (a get together in a pub and didn't know he was going to be there). We chatted and he sent his regards.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
Of course, the more names a Roman had, the more up-market he was. Three names was the basic standard not to be a mere prole, barbarian furriner, or slave. But the really snooty ones got 4. Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator was the rough equivalent in go-faster stripes to Viscount Bernard Montgomery of Alamein. And as for the emperors ...
But the other day I came across a chap who had been adopted. He'd got his standard three names, but immediately had to add three more from his new family. So he ended up with six names all at once.
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
Poor old Leon, desperate for it to have been a muslim or a black or a trans or an illegal or at the very least a Democrat.
What we got was an all-American christian white boy from a staunch Republican family so you are clinging on to the "he was a leftist" for dear life!
He likely at least was a leftist Democrat, his family made clear his political views increasingly diverged from theirs
If the killer was indeed registered as a Democrat, I'm sure we will hear about it by Monday. Has anyone called him an incel yet? That's another one that is often thrown around.
He’s unaffiliated so no party preference.
Can you be registered as, for example, a Green in the US?
Yes . Utah doesn’t have automatic registration like some states . In states where it’s automatic you’re automatically listed as unaffiliated and then have to actively change that .
I don't approve of comments making light of anyone's death but I thought that American rightwingers were free speech absolutists. Why would they be firing people who say things they don't like if they believe in free speech and oppose cancel culture?
As an example of complete blindness (wilful or otherwise) to the utter inconsistency of their professed beliefs and their own actions, this breathtaking example probably can't be bettered. https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1966743243137208679
No doubt similar examples exist on the left, of course.
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
Sorry Malcolm, can I just check what you’re saying?
That I’m a privileged bellend because my daughter, on her 12th birthday, would like to go to a sushi place with a conveyor belt. And that the fact we might come across Tommy Robinson in a far right demo might not have been number one on our birthday wish list?
What should I be doing instead? What “real life” do I need to attach myself to? Suggesting our daughter goes for something a bit less foreign, like eels pie and mash, and then join in with the protesters? Would that be suitable real life to you?
Some posters on here really are gratuitously nasty.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
And PGW made it look so effortless.
And no-one (I think) has successfully parodied or imitated it. (Is this a challenge for AI? I would be interested to know if AI can produce Wodehouse so that it reads like PGW in his prime (1925-1940?)
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
Sorry Malcolm, can I just check what you’re saying?
That I’m a privileged bellend because my daughter, on her 12th birthday, would like to go to a sushi place with a conveyor belt. And that the fact we might come across Tommy Robinson in a far right demo might not have been number one on our birthday wish list?
What should I be doing instead? What “real life” do I need to attach myself to? Suggesting our daughter goes for something a bit less foreign, like eels pie and mash, and then join in with the protesters? Would that be suitable real life to you?
Some posters on here really are gratuitously nasty.
I find Yo Sushi a bit disappointing generally. Maybe it's better when done fresh on site.
She's 12 though and wanting the conveyor belt novelty, so her call. Have a Happy Birthday!
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
And PGW made it look so effortless.
And no-one (I think) has successfully parodied or imitated it. (Is this a challenge for AI? I would be interested to know if AI can produce Wodehouse so that it reads like PGW in his prime (1925-1940?)
The Faulks one isn't bad at all - I certainly kept my copy rather than putting it into the charity shop pile.
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
Sorry Malcolm, can I just check what you’re saying?
That I’m a privileged bellend because my daughter, on her 12th birthday, would like to go to a sushi place with a conveyor belt. And that the fact we might come across Tommy Robinson in a far right demo might not have been number one on our birthday wish list?
What should I be doing instead? What “real life” do I need to attach myself to? Suggesting our daughter goes for something a bit less foreign, like eels pie and mash, and then join in with the protesters? Would that be suitable real life to you?
Some posters on here really are gratuitously nasty.
I find Yo Sushi a bit disappointing generally. Maybe it's better when done fresh on site.
She's 12 though and wanting the conveyor belt novelty, so her call. Have a Happy Bithday!
Exactly. There aren’t many conveyor belt options in central London. That’s what she would like. Which apparently, despite it being a mid range chain, makes my daughter an out of touch elitist.
I’ve heard stuff in recent days that could end Starmer
Stop being pathetic and say what it is, instead of this feeble innuendo.
The ‘I know something you don’t’ tendency is utterly tedious. It’s not just Leon.
Either tell us or STFU.
I remember before the 92 election someone I worked with claimed that he knew people who had stuff on Neil Kinnock and if he was close in the election campaign it would come out and he’d be finished due to the scandal and so would Labour be.
Suffice to say it was total bollocks and there was nothing on him.
Large pinch of salt needed.
I won’t DM @JosiasJessop because he’s so boring. But if you want I will DM you
In other news I am in the world capital of Wokeness. Orgosolo
Hilariously wanky yet with a certain Italian charm despite
Interesting retraction by the Grauniad. It looks like they were being trolled about Tyler Robinson being a leftist.
"Editor’s note: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove summarized quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship."
Obviously the Woke, Islamic, Trans cabal got to the verified source. Shameful. (coming to a MAGA social media account shortly)
Yes. Those evil MAGA fascists altering images and making up shit to get a narrative across
Oh
“An image of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, wearing a pro-Trump shirt is being widely shared. But the image is digitally altered.
In the real photo, posted on Facebook by one of Robinson's family members, there's no logo or writing on his shirt.”
I find the whole registered voter thing in the US really weird. I have voted across the board, the thought I need to keep signally / updating who it was I support seems tedious at best. Yes I know its so you can vote in primaries etc, but I have far too many other things to be doing than constantly updating such a register and also do I want to signal to everybody who I vote for every time? And of course no context, you might want to vote for a local candidate because of them (or because you want to vote against a different local candidate) not really the party.
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
And PGW made it look so effortless.
And no-one (I think) has successfully parodied or imitated it. (Is this a challenge for AI? I would be interested to know if AI can produce Wodehouse so that it reads like PGW in his prime (1925-1940?)
The Faulks one isn't bad at all - I certainly kept my copy rather than putting it into the charity shop pile.
Mandy's revenge - if he does decide to go on the offensive will he do it now for the Sundays or time something for Trump's visit so SKS stands accused of embarrassing HMK?
Id ban children from being given combined surnames. So we protect future generations from having to invite the Smith-Templeton-Hydrangia-Brown-Roose-Billington-Smyth-Jones's over for dinner
Exactly. How can we tell PLU from People Like Them if even the oiks have double-barrelled names?
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons." "England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons." "Tolerably so, sir." "No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?" "Presumably not, sir." "And what sort of a specimen is this one?" "I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance." "Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?" "No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The only author who can make me chuckle simply with a standard turn of phrase.
At the very beginning of the Johnson premiership, Private Eye experimented with a Wodehouse parody of Boris and Dom. Which did get to the satirical heart of the matter. I think it was called Leaves and Booster, which is a decent gag in itself. It didn't last. I like to think it's because, for even talented mortals, that density of funny is insanely difficult work.
And PGW made it look so effortless.
And no-one (I think) has successfully parodied or imitated it. (Is this a challenge for AI? I would be interested to know if AI can produce Wodehouse so that it reads like PGW in his prime (1925-1940?)
The Faulks one isn't bad at all - I certainly kept my copy rather than putting it into the charity shop pile.
I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.
This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.
The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.
None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.
starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.
No, I'm sorry but whoever wins will have no bearing on whether Starmer stays or goes. That will fundamentally depend on how likely it is Labour will win the next election with him vs with someone else. It's also incredibly difficult for Labour to forcibly remove a sitting PM in a way that it isn't for the Tories. It took Brown 5 years of scheming and plotting to bring Blair down, it took the Tories a few weeks to bring Mrs Thatcher down.
Like it or not I think Starmer is here to stay at least until 2028 when the parties will be gearing up for a 2029 election and MPs start looking at wh is best placed to preserve their majority. Rayner may make a comeback around then.
Starmer is trading at 2.7 to exit next year. That's good value to lay imo although I'm not as convinced as I used to be that it won't happen.
If he leaves sooner than then it will be because he has to resign over this Mandelson scandal, not because the MPs force him out due to internal party unrest.
Mandy's revenge - if he does decide to go on the offensive will he do it now for the Sundays or time something for Trump's visit so SKS stands accused of embarrassing HMK?
Mandy will do what's best for Mandy. It's not obvious that cathartic revenge on Starmer is in his interests. It's not what he did after his previous resignations, is it?
(I did like Rob Hutton's line:
The author David Nicholls is rumoured to be working on a novel about a star-crossed couple who run into each other over the decades on the days Mandelson quits.)
The Times revealed today that Number 10 and the Foreign Office were told about the cache of emails between Lord Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein early on Tuesday
And yet 24 hours later Keir Starmer mounted a forthright defence of Lord Mandelson at PMQs
Government sources said Starmer was not aware of the emails when he expressed confidence in Mandelson
If that’s the case the question is why not?
The suggestion is that Sir Oliver Robbins, the perm sec at the foreign office, was attempting to get answers about the emails from Mandelson. He didn’t get a response until Weds afternoon
But given the nuclear nature of the emails and the fact senior figures were aware of their contents it seems bizarre that Starmer wasn’t informed. Surely someone should have told him that huge and deeply damaging story was about to break?
Instead he found himself backing them sacking Mandelson in the space if 24 hours, with significant implications for his authority
I’ve heard stuff in recent days that could end Starmer
Stop being pathetic and say what it is, instead of this feeble innuendo.
The ‘I know something you don’t’ tendency is utterly tedious. It’s not just Leon.
Either tell us or STFU.
I remember before the 92 election someone I worked with claimed that he knew people who had stuff on Neil Kinnock and if he was close in the election campaign it would come out and he’d be finished due to the scandal and so would Labour be.
Suffice to say it was total bollocks and there was nothing on him.
Large pinch of salt needed.
I won’t DM @JosiasJessop because he’s so boring. But if you want I will DM you
In other news I am in the world capital of Wokeness. Orgosolo
Hilariously wanky yet with a certain Italian charm despite
Mandy's revenge - if he does decide to go on the offensive will he do it now for the Sundays or time something for Trump's visit so SKS stands accused of embarrassing HMK?
Mandy will do what's best for Mandy. It's not obvious that cathartic revenge on Starmer is in his interests. It's not what he did after his previous resignations, is it?
(I did like Rob Hutton's line:
The author David Nicholls is rumoured to be working on a novel about a star-crossed couple who run into each other over the decades on the days Mandelson quits.)
Mandelson expected quick returns to office after his previous resignations.
He received them as well, quicker than what was the standard practice until then.
The Times revealed today that Number 10 and the Foreign Office were told about the cache of emails between Lord Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein early on Tuesday
And yet 24 hours later Keir Starmer mounted a forthright defence of Lord Mandelson at PMQs
Government sources said Starmer was not aware of the emails when he expressed confidence in Mandelson
If that’s the case the question is why not?
The suggestion is that Sir Oliver Robbins, the perm sec at the foreign office, was attempting to get answers about the emails from Mandelson. He didn’t get a response until Weds afternoon
But given the nuclear nature of the emails and the fact senior figures were aware of their contents it seems bizarre that Starmer wasn’t informed. Surely someone should have told him that huge and deeply damaging story was about to break?
Instead he found himself backing them sacking Mandelson in the space if 24 hours, with significant implications for his authority
Its as believable as Boris not knowing about any parties going on in #10. The only way is if there was a direct order never to tell the PM anything. The thought nobody would be sending up the bat signal about this, especially as Rayner only went last week after the PM again backed her and found out she lied about having taken legal advice, doesn't pass the smell test (unless direct orders not to).
I said this the other day, some underling is going to get thrown under the bus for not passing on vetting info and now this.
Mandy's revenge - if he does decide to go on the offensive will he do it now for the Sundays or time something for Trump's visit so SKS stands accused of embarrassing HMK?
Mandy will do what's best for Mandy. It's not obvious that cathartic revenge on Starmer is in his interests. It's not what he did after his previous resignations, is it?
(I did like Rob Hutton's line:
The author David Nicholls is rumoured to be working on a novel about a star-crossed couple who run into each other over the decades on the days Mandelson quits.)
Mandelson expected quick returns to office after his previous resignations.
He received them as well, quicker than what was the standard practice until then.
And it looks like hes being forced out of his own lobbying firm too. Its all imploding after he'll have been promised support /backing
Officials at No 10 and the Foreign Office were aware of supportive emails between Lord Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when the prime minister initially defended the former ambassador on Wednesday, the BBC understands.
Sources stressed Sir Keir was not aware of the contents of the emails when he stood by Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The BBC understands that a media enquiry outlining details of the messages between the pair was sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday, and passed on to No 10.
Yet again, never crossed my desk and I didn't think to ask.
It also means there is no one in his team with any political nous.
It went from the foreign office press officer to the Downing Street press office. They “started looking into it”.
No one thought to show it to the Director of Communications*? Really? Either Starmer is lying or the DoC should be sacked for being crap.
* no idea if that is the right title but assuming there is a political appointee with that responsibility.
They are obviously lying or it was ordered to ensure key people aren't sent things so they can claim ignorance. In today's WhatsApp age, no way when there is red lights flashing on the control panel at the nuclear power station that people don't have ability to contact management instantly.
It’s almost insulting how obviously they are lying. At least Blair’s lies were sophisticated
The Times revealed today that Number 10 and the Foreign Office were told about the cache of emails between Lord Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein early on Tuesday
And yet 24 hours later Keir Starmer mounted a forthright defence of Lord Mandelson at PMQs
Government sources said Starmer was not aware of the emails when he expressed confidence in Mandelson
If that’s the case the question is why not?
The suggestion is that Sir Oliver Robbins, the perm sec at the foreign office, was attempting to get answers about the emails from Mandelson. He didn’t get a response until Weds afternoon
But given the nuclear nature of the emails and the fact senior figures were aware of their contents it seems bizarre that Starmer wasn’t informed. Surely someone should have told him that huge and deeply damaging story was about to break?
Instead he found himself backing them sacking Mandelson in the space if 24 hours, with significant implications for his authority
Its as believable as Boris not knowing about any parties going on in #10. The only way is if there was a direct order never to tell the PM anything. The thought nobody would be sending up the bat signal about this, especially as Rayner only went last week after the PM again backed her and found out she lied about having taken legal advice, doesn't pass the smell test (unless direct orders not to).
I said this the other day, some underling is going to get thrown under the bus for not passing on vetting info and now this.
If the FCO were aware of them too, where does that leave Cooper?
Steve Bannon is apparently going to speak at today's far right mob event.
Guardian says Hope not Hate expecting 40,000 to turn out.
I'm hoping they will have all crawled back under their rocks by later this afternoon as I'm going to a wedding in the centre of town. If they kick off at the sight of me and my brown missus I guess I can always pretend to be JD Vance.
And I’m going into the centre for our daughter’s birthday as she wants sushi from a conveyor belt, and the Yo Sushi in Selfridges is bizarrely the closest to where our son’s working at the V&A. I hadn’t banked on coming across a far right demo when we made our plans.
Yikes. Being attacked by fascists while going for sushi is every middle class Metropolitan elitist's worse nightmare.
Sorry I can only like this one once , what a privilged bellend comment that was, totally detached from real life.
Sorry Malcolm, can I just check what you’re saying?
That I’m a privileged bellend because my daughter, on her 12th birthday, would like to go to a sushi place with a conveyor belt. And that the fact we might come across Tommy Robinson in a far right demo might not have been number one on our birthday wish list?
What should I be doing instead? What “real life” do I need to attach myself to? Suggesting our daughter goes for something a bit less foreign, like eels pie and mash, and then join in with the protesters? Would that be suitable real life to you?
Some posters on here really are gratuitously nasty.
I find Yo Sushi a bit disappointing generally. Maybe it's better when done fresh on site.
She's 12 though and wanting the conveyor belt novelty, so her call. Have a Happy Bithday!
Exactly. There aren’t many conveyor belt options in central London. That’s what she would like. Which apparently, despite it being a mid range chain, makes my daughter an out of touch elitist.
M&D on Deptford High Street is an excellent sushi option in SE London. My 13yo daughter, also a massive fan of Japanese food, loves it. No conveyor belt though.
The Times revealed today that Number 10 and the Foreign Office were told about the cache of emails between Lord Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein early on Tuesday
And yet 24 hours later Keir Starmer mounted a forthright defence of Lord Mandelson at PMQs
Government sources said Starmer was not aware of the emails when he expressed confidence in Mandelson
If that’s the case the question is why not?
The suggestion is that Sir Oliver Robbins, the perm sec at the foreign office, was attempting to get answers about the emails from Mandelson. He didn’t get a response until Weds afternoon
But given the nuclear nature of the emails and the fact senior figures were aware of their contents it seems bizarre that Starmer wasn’t informed. Surely someone should have told him that huge and deeply damaging story was about to break?
Instead he found himself backing them sacking Mandelson in the space if 24 hours, with significant implications for his authority
Its as believable as Boris not knowing about any parties going on in #10. The only way is if there was a direct order never to tell the PM anything. The thought nobody would be sending up the bat signal about this, especially as Rayner only went last week after the PM again backed her and found out she lied about having taken legal advice, doesn't pass the smell test (unless direct orders not to).
I said this the other day, some underling is going to get thrown under the bus for not passing on vetting info and now this.
If the FCO were aware of them too, where does that leave Cooper?
In the same position as those of us who have also heard them...thinking "how the hell...???"
Who knew bringing back Peter Mandelson would all end in tears... Who knew! 😂
Still discussing Mandelson I see. I'm in the Balkans so haven't been paying full attention.
My view is what's the fuss? Everybody knew he was a slimy sleazeball when he was appointed, and once I overcame my initial revulsion I realised that was why he was uniquely qualified for the job. With some success I would say, in dealing with Trump you need someone like him. It takes one to know one.
There is one obvious candidate to replace him - step forward Boris Johnson!
(For the avoidance of doubt, I would be adopting a totally 180 degree opposite foreign policy, and would accept we would have to live with the consequences).
Comments
It's The Guardian and New World now.
She has a habit of foot-in-mouth syndrome and is usually a gift for her opponents.
I suspect she will win, simply by dint of not being in the cabinet.
Having the judgment to work out what's necessary comes into it - but this government already knows some of those things (radical planning reform, or a broad increase in general taxation at the start of this parliament, for example), and has avoided grasping the nettle.
Basic competence allied with decisiveness, then ?
Conversely, the Tories consistently failed on the former.
They might also feel a need to disassociate his views from theirs.
Van 1 zooms into a parking space (that I was about to park in, the bastard). Driver gets out and runs up the road.
Van 2 draws up alongside my parked car, and gets out to do a delivery. Driver of van 1 and his accomplice (I didn’t see this bit) attacks van 2 delivery man and grabs his keys, then one of the miscreants jumps back into van 1 and screeches away, the other jumps into van 2 and nicks it, the owner running after it shouting “call the police”.
So I’ve been sitting in the back of a police car for the first time ever, giving a statement.
It was with pleasure that I was able to describe the robbers as “unshaven and fat”.
I don't approve of comments making light of anyone's death but I thought that American rightwingers were free speech absolutists. Why would they be firing people who say things they don't like if they believe in free speech and oppose cancel culture?
That is separate from a parliamentary vote of confidence like the one that ended the Callaghan government in 1979. Labour has an overall majority of 170-odd (depending how you count it) so it is inconceivable they could lose such a vote.
“I am familiar with the name Bassington-Bassington, sir. There are three branches of the Bassington-Bassington family - the Shropshire Bassington-Bassingtons, the Hampshire Bassington-Bassingtons, and the Kent Bassington-Bassingtons."
"England seems pretty well stocked up with Bassington-Bassingtons."
"Tolerably so, sir."
"No chance of a sudden shortage, I mean, what?"
"Presumably not, sir."
"And what sort of a specimen is this one?"
"I could not say, sir, on such short acquaintance."
"Will you give me a sporting two to one, Jeeves, judging from what you have seen of him, that this chappie is not a blighter or an excrescence?"
"No, sir. I should not care to venture such liberal odds.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, The Inimitable Jeeves
The facts as the left wants to see them is that this was right on right, a squabble between factional degrees of fascism.
We’ll need to wait to see which is correct. I’ve yet to see a clear winner.
https://youtu.be/FM1OWQtQgx0?si=_Noeode9RkUninNG
In other words, it is about control of speech.
I think if Labour MPs wanted to be rid of Starmer they’d be able to force it. Perhaps in a similar way to Johnson (government resignations that snowball to the point that it simply isn’t possible to cling on anymore).
And PGW made it look so effortless.
A scientist, for instance, would effectively be throwing away all her (usually her) career to date if she changed surnames, and have to start again to some extent. I knew a chap who changed his name in his late twenties back to his birth surname (hated his stepfather's guts or something of the sort) and even today, more than half a centiry later, young colleagues occasionally ask me if X really was the same person as Y.
I wouldn't even risk a double-barrelled name, given the importance of machine retrieval for academic publications and the scoring of credit.
There's an analogous issue for politicians, who have to build up a reputation and kudos (and debts and credits and favours).
But the other day I came across a chap who had been adopted. He'd got his standard three names, but immediately had to add three more from his new family. So he ended up with six names all at once.
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1966743243137208679
No doubt similar examples exist on the left, of course.
That I’m a privileged bellend because my daughter, on her 12th birthday, would like to go to a sushi place with a conveyor belt. And that the fact we might come across Tommy Robinson in a far right demo might not have been number one on our birthday wish list?
What should I be doing instead? What “real life” do I need to attach myself to? Suggesting our daughter goes for something a bit less foreign, like eels pie and mash, and then join in with the protesters? Would that be suitable real life to you?
Some posters on here really are gratuitously nasty.
Reform army of usual DNVers energised?? Which might not necessarily be a great sign for them in a wider participation election
She's 12 though and wanting the conveyor belt novelty, so her call. Have a Happy Birthday!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/10/jeeves-wedding-bells-faulks-wodehouse-review
In other news I am in the world capital of Wokeness. Orgosolo
Hilariously wanky yet with a certain Italian charm despite
(I did like Rob Hutton's line:
The author David Nicholls is rumoured to be working on a novel about a star-crossed couple who run into each other over the decades on the days Mandelson quits.)
The Times revealed today that Number 10 and the Foreign Office were told about the cache of emails between Lord Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein early on Tuesday
And yet 24 hours later Keir Starmer mounted a forthright defence of Lord Mandelson at PMQs
Government sources said Starmer was not aware of the emails when he expressed confidence in Mandelson
If that’s the case the question is why not?
The suggestion is that Sir Oliver Robbins, the perm sec at the foreign office, was attempting to get answers about the emails from Mandelson. He didn’t get a response until Weds afternoon
But given the nuclear nature of the emails and the fact senior figures were aware of their contents it seems bizarre that Starmer wasn’t informed. Surely someone should have told him that huge and deeply damaging story was about to break?
Instead he found himself backing them sacking Mandelson in the space if 24 hours, with significant implications for his authority
He received them as well, quicker than what was the standard practice until then.
I said this the other day, some underling is going to get thrown under the bus for not passing on vetting info and now this.
Fire raiser charged. He made a real mess of Sharon Hodgson's office.
I wonder if he has set other places on fire or not. I notice that he has been accused of criminal damage, it seems odd.
Colour me sceptical
Now you’ve heard *even more* stuff that could end Starmer
https://x.com/forallcurious/status/1966643587992408238
https://x.com/iAstroFaisal/status/1966807902993203356
Never let it be said the Italians don’t know how to make a pfennig out of genocide
My view is what's the fuss? Everybody knew he was a slimy sleazeball when he was appointed, and once I overcame my initial revulsion I realised that was why he was uniquely qualified for the job. With some success I would say, in dealing with Trump you need someone like him. It takes one to know one.
There is one obvious candidate to replace him - step forward Boris Johnson!
(For the avoidance of doubt, I would be adopting a totally 180 degree opposite foreign policy, and would accept we would have to live with the consequences).