Skip to content

New YouGov poll shows support for the UK becoming a republic increasing – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,761
edited October 30 in General
New YouGov poll shows support for the UK becoming a republic increasing – politicalbetting.com

91% of Britons now have a negative opinion of Prince Andrew, the highest ever recorded by YouGovVery negative: 81% (+12 from 5-6 Aug)Fairly negative: 10% (-8)Fairly positive: 3% (-1)Very positive: 1% (=)yougov.co.uk/politics/art…

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    edited October 30
    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Andrew is beyond redemption but the Royal Family not at present though they are certainly not as popular as the late Queen

    And on Reeves this from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,729
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    WOULD HAVE ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Sky suggesting the emails may be good news for Reeves and will be published later
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,408
    fpt
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    TOPPING said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    NickPalmer said:

    StillWaters said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MaxPB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Ratters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    As a landlord I am glad I am reducing my portfolio.



    https://x.com/s8mb/status/1983620129083838932

    A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.

    Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.

    ... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
    The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.

    The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
    Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.

    The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
    Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).

    Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
    You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
    Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.

    But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
    We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
    You can make a start, obvs.
    Yawn.
    You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
    Hush.
    Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
    Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
    Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
    Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.

    To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
    He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
    You still don't get it. He is setting arbitrary red lines because that suits his position. As does everyone else on the planet. He then (please do join us, Kini) however portrays those red lines as essential truths.

    Conservatives are much more pragmatic. We don't lecture people at every opportunity on what they should or shouldn't give up (unless we are calling out left wing hypocrites). What grates with me is not that he has made his money through intelligence and application (well done) but that he is drawing his political philosophy carefully around his own best interests where it is easy, given his wealth, to shout for higher taxes on "the people" because they won't touch him. Yet deems it absurd to adopt policies where it would affect him. He is behaving just like every right winger on the planet but denouncing right wingers for their behaviour.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    edited October 30
    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,729
    Calling back to the last thread, the iconography of this Homeland Security vid is definitely not... Hungarian.
    Initially I thought it was a parody.

    We REFUSE to back down from our mission to make America safe.

    @CMDROpAtLargeCA is putting his life on the line to protect our citizens, and no amount of radical terror or anarchy will stop us in our mission.
    https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1983273176907043070
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky suggesting the emails may be good news for Reeves and will be published later

    That's a shame. All the pain for Starmer without the unflushsble turd flushing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    edited October 30
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
    Or the opposite, like Rayner, where they basically say your responsibility to ensure you comply.

    If its the Lettings Agency who have screwed up not great for their business.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
    Or the opposite, like Rayner, where they basically say your responsibility to ensure you comply.

    If its the Lettings Agency who have screwed up not great for their business.
    I’ve checked my agreements with my Lettings Agencies and they are clear they inform the landlord of what certificates are required in each area.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,922
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    They've found some fragrant bleach to clean up her flagrant breach of the law
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,922
    No. 10 have guaranteed that Reeves will deliver the Budget on 26 Nov
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    edited October 30
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
    Or the opposite, like Rayner, where they basically say your responsibility to ensure you comply.

    If its the Lettings Agency who have screwed up not great for their business.
    I’ve checked my agreements with my Lettings Agencies and they are clear they inform the landlord of what certificates are required in each area.
    Seems the e mails are between the letting agent and Reeves husband

    I expect the letting agent may have questions to answer
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,238
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    Somebody has been dripping poison....
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,535
    BlancheLivermore said:

    No. 10 have guaranteed that Reeves will deliver the Budget on 26 Nov

    If they keep that promise as well as they keep all their others...



    ....she's toast.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,238
    BlancheLivermore said:

    No. 10 have guaranteed that Reeves will deliver the Budget on 26 Nov

    So, singalong everybody: "Sacked in the mornin', yer gettin' sacked in the mornin'....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
    Or the opposite, like Rayner, where they basically say your responsibility to ensure you comply.

    If its the Lettings Agency who have screwed up not great for their business.
    I’ve checked my agreements with my Lettings Agencies and they are clear they inform the landlord of what certificates are required in each area.
    Surely the scandal in this instance is not the permit oversight which appears ludicrously complicated, but the fact that she is taking a monkey and a half a week in rental income because she is entitled to a buckshee tied cottage at the taxpayer's expense as CoE.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:

    Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.

    And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.

    “I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”

    He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    MarqueeMark said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    PA:

    The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.

    No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.

    A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”

    “This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”

    ---

    Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?

    Somebody has been dripping poison....
    She blubbed when Starmer tried to sack her, so I know where my finger is pointing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,238
    edited October 30
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:

    Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.

    And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.

    “I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”

    He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates

    "Phil Turtle" sounds like an instruction from some utterly hideous Victorian cookbook...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    edited October 30
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    TOPPING said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    NickPalmer said:

    StillWaters said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MaxPB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Ratters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    As a landlord I am glad I am reducing my portfolio.



    https://x.com/s8mb/status/1983620129083838932

    A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.

    Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.

    ... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
    The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.

    The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
    Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.

    The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
    Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).

    Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
    You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
    Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.

    But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
    We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
    You can make a start, obvs.
    Yawn.
    You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
    Hush.
    Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
    Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
    Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
    Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.

    To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
    He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
    You still don't get it. He is setting arbitrary red lines because that suits his position. As does everyone else on the planet. He then (please do join us, Kini) however portrays those red lines as essential truths.

    Conservatives are much more pragmatic. We don't lecture people at every opportunity on what they should or shouldn't give up (unless we are calling out left wing hypocrites). What grates with me is not that he has made his money through intelligence and application (well done) but that he is drawing his political philosophy carefully around his own best interests where it is easy, given his wealth, to shout for higher taxes on "the people" because they won't touch him. Yet deems it absurd to adopt policies where it would affect him. He is behaving just like every right winger on the planet but denouncing right wingers for their behaviour.
    Bloody hell. What a reprehensible
    shambles that guy sounds! Who is he?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,294
    WinViz

    Australia 50%
    India 50%
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    MarqueeMark said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:

    Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.

    And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.

    “I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”

    He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates

    "Phil Turtle" sounds like an instruction from some utterly hideous Victorian cookbook...
    Back in the day the president of the Baba's was a bloke called Steele-Bodger, his day job was as a veterinary surgeon.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    MarqueeMark said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:

    Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.

    And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.

    “I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”

    He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates

    "Phil Turtle" sounds like an instruction from some utterly hideous Victorian cookbook...
    Or some truly disgusting act of bestiality.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    edited October 30
    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    Pro tip.

    Never google how to spell ‘bestiality’.

    I need to burn my phone in acid then drop a nuclear bomb on it.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,930
    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,190
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pro tip.

    Never google how to spell ‘bestiality’.

    I need to burn my phone in acid then drop a nuclear bomb on it.

    "Aye, fine, fine bestial" is what Scots farmers used to say when leaning on the gate admiring another farmer's cattle.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Greens eating up the Reform and Tory rounding. I wonder if the FoN Reform voting intention issue can be applied to Zack's Student Politics Party.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,676
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pro tip.

    Never google how to spell ‘bestiality’.

    I need to burn my phone in acid then drop a nuclear bomb on it.

    Pro tip to a pro: don't google how to burn in acid or drop a nuclear bomb.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,676
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Is Find Out Now the one that uses the Post Code Lottery?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,676
    Come on India!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    Benpointer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Is Find Out Now the one that uses the Post Code Lottery?
    Yes, they use Pick My Postcode Lottery, which is different to the People’s Postcode Lottery.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,847
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Andrew is beyond redemption but the Royal Family not at present though they are certainly not as popular as the late Queen

    And on Reeves this from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-labour-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Andrew’s fundamental problem is he’s a sweaty nonce.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,294
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Vote Reform to stop the extremists.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,847
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,633
    theProle said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    No. 10 have guaranteed that Reeves will deliver the Budget on 26 Nov

    If they keep that promise as well as they keep all their others...



    ....she's toast.
    Torsten will be fine. He's been writing the thing anyway so now all he has to do is read it out.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,922
    Is everyone supposed to have a public PB profile by now?

    There are two private profiles that have posted on this thread
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Is this what you are alluding to?

    https://youtu.be/L-37RVluCNU?si=DB1mje-Y9DvFlLgv
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,798
    Mexicanpete said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Greens eating up the Reform and Tory rounding. I wonder if the FoN Reform voting intention issue can be applied to Zack's Student Politics Party.
    Not in the same way. While YouGov have a much lower share for Reform than Find Out Now - a difference much remarked upon - they are in pretty close agreement on the Green share.

    Though other pollsters have recently given Green shares below 10%.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
    Put down that copy of the Daily Mail now!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,294
    Tories and Labour are now both averaging 18% in the polls.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    Andy_JS said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Vote Reform to stop the extremists.
    Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle with Labour and the Tories.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,327
    https://x.com/Peston/status/1983938304446812167

    There is new info on Reeves and her failure to register as a landlord - from this afternoon’s Downing St briefing. I have pasted it below. It is possible, when I’ve seen the relevant emails, that I will change the judgement I made thus morning

    “•Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband, Nick Joicey, new information has come to light. It has passed to the PM and independent ethics advisor. The emails will be published for us to see later today
    •PM retains full confidence in Reeves
    •the ethics advisor can decide to take a variety of actions. He will look at all the relevant correspondence and make a decision”
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,952
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    That’s a very Trumpesque comment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,408
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    TOPPING said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    NickPalmer said:

    StillWaters said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MaxPB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Ratters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    As a landlord I am glad I am reducing my portfolio.



    https://x.com/s8mb/status/1983620129083838932

    A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.

    Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.

    ... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
    The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.

    The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
    Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.

    The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
    Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).

    Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
    You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
    Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.

    But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
    We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
    You can make a start, obvs.
    Yawn.
    You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
    Hush.
    Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
    Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
    Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
    Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.

    To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
    He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
    You still don't get it. He is setting arbitrary red lines because that suits his position. As does everyone else on the planet. He then (please do join us, Kini) however portrays those red lines as essential truths.

    Conservatives are much more pragmatic. We don't lecture people at every opportunity on what they should or shouldn't give up (unless we are calling out left wing hypocrites). What grates with me is not that he has made his money through intelligence and application (well done) but that he is drawing his political philosophy carefully around his own best interests where it is easy, given his wealth, to shout for higher taxes on "the people" because they won't touch him. Yet deems it absurd to adopt policies where it would affect him. He is behaving just like every right winger on the planet but denouncing right wingers for their behaviour.
    Bloody hell. What a reprehensible
    shambles that guy sounds! Who is he?
    It doesn't get worse than being compared to a right winger I feel your pain.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,980
    Mexicanpete said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Vote Reform to stop the extremists.
    Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle with Labour and the Tories.
    Green here now to defeat Priti Patel!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    This whole thing stinks. The Prime Minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her!

    https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1983936008686112792?s=19

    She is going to look really stupid if as I expect now Mr and Mrs Reeves have emails that cover their arse. Its why normally political parties have their "attack dog" who is somewhat detached from the leadership. Let them fire from the hip and the leader can sound reasomable say well i think x should be independently investigated and lets wait and see.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1983938304446812167

    There is new info on Reeves and her failure to register as a landlord - from this afternoon’s Downing St briefing. I have pasted it below. It is possible, when I’ve seen the relevant emails, that I will change the judgement I made thus morning

    “•Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband, Nick Joicey, new information has come to light. It has passed to the PM and independent ethics advisor. The emails will be published for us to see later today
    •PM retains full confidence in Reeves
    •the ethics advisor can decide to take a variety of actions. He will look at all the relevant correspondence and make a decision”

    You are quoting Preston! Are you back to being a Eurofederalist Centrist Dad?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1983938304446812167

    There is new info on Reeves and her failure to register as a landlord - from this afternoon’s Downing St briefing. I have pasted it below. It is possible, when I’ve seen the relevant emails, that I will change the judgement I made thus morning

    “•Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband, Nick Joicey, new information has come to light. It has passed to the PM and independent ethics advisor. The emails will be published for us to see later today
    •PM retains full confidence in Reeves
    •the ethics advisor can decide to take a variety of actions. He will look at all the relevant correspondence and make a decision”

    What was his take this morning?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,980
    Going down to the wire in the cricket. India need 10 runs off 2overs and 2 balls.

    At time of writing!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    This whole thing stinks. The Prime Minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her!

    https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1983936008686112792?s=19

    She is going to look really stupid if as I expect now Mr and Mrs Reeves have emails that cover their arse. Its why normally political parties have their "attack dog" who is somewhat detached from the leadership. Let them fire from the hip and the leader can sound reasomable say well i think x should be independently investigated and lets wait and see.

    Don't panic, I suspect Kemi has already seen the emails. What was it she claimed about Hattie's laptop?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,294
    edited October 30
    Australia throwing it away v India. Too many wides and full tosses.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,294
    India saved by Catholic Jemimah Rodrigues.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,423
    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,935
    The Atlantic has an interesting profile of Rahm Emanuel and his potential for a 2028 bid.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    edited October 30
    The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500, and give priority to white South Africans. The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, will apply for the next fiscal year and marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,952
    Andy_JS said:

    Australia throwing it away v India. Too many wides and full tosses.

    Not unexpected. Australia are a bunch of tosses, sorry, tossers.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,952
    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    And you’ll wake up HYUFD.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,622
    Stuartinromford said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
    Break down Radiohead songs in minute detail?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,980
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
    Break down Radiohead songs in minute detail?
    Who or what are Radiohead?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,555
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    Should continue to have monarchy: 62%
    Should have elected head of state: 25%

    Complete non story. Unspinnable.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,935
    OldKingCole said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
    Break down Radiohead songs in minute detail?
    Who or what are Radiohead?
    A popular beat combo.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The Trump administration will limit the number of refugees admitted to the US to 7,500, and give priority to white South Africans. The move, announced in a notice published on Thursday, will apply for the next fiscal year and marks a dramatic cut from the previous limit of 125,000 set by former President Joe Biden.

    Do the white South Africans have to prove they're racist to be successful under this scheme? Be a risk of some wrong'uns getting in otherwise.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,980
    Foss said:

    OldKingCole said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
    Break down Radiohead songs in minute detail?
    Who or what are Radiohead?
    A popular beat combo.
    Thank you. Obliged. I've been wondering.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,732
    OldKingCole said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I would have made a truly great spin doctor, if not the greatest spin doctor ever.

    I know you're trolling about the monarchy and republicanism but give it a rest, it's just boring now. We get it you don't like the royals.
    If we all stopped posting repetitively about people and ideas we don't like, what would we do all day?
    Break down Radiohead songs in minute detail?
    Who or what are Radiohead?
    Very much known for their seminal album “The Bends” below.


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    Mexicanpete said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1983938304446812167

    There is new info on Reeves and her failure to register as a landlord - from this afternoon’s Downing St briefing. I have pasted it below. It is possible, when I’ve seen the relevant emails, that I will change the judgement I made thus morning

    “•Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband, Nick Joicey, new information has come to light. It has passed to the PM and independent ethics advisor. The emails will be published for us to see later today
    •PM retains full confidence in Reeves
    •the ethics advisor can decide to take a variety of actions. He will look at all the relevant correspondence and make a decision”

    You are quoting Preston! Are you back to being a Eurofederalist Centrist Dad?
    I too am curious to see where this William breaks. Polanski Green is my bet.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,633
    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,633
    Hugo Gye reposted
    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    1m
    Rachel Reeves’ letting agent takes responsibility and appears to bail her out
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,423
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1983938304446812167

    There is new info on Reeves and her failure to register as a landlord - from this afternoon’s Downing St briefing. I have pasted it below. It is possible, when I’ve seen the relevant emails, that I will change the judgement I made thus morning

    “•Following a review of emails sent and received by the chancellor’s husband, Nick Joicey, new information has come to light. It has passed to the PM and independent ethics advisor. The emails will be published for us to see later today
    •PM retains full confidence in Reeves
    •the ethics advisor can decide to take a variety of actions. He will look at all the relevant correspondence and make a decision”

    What was his take this morning?
    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-10-30/peston-are-the-tories-wise-to-call-for-reeves-to-be-sacked

    In Reeves’s case, it’s theoretically possible that her local council would have imposed conditions on her when renting. And it is embarrassing for her that she had previously welcomed a different council’s decision to regulate renters.

    But she seems to have proof of her ignorance that her own council required registration. And she has apologised for not making the effort to find out for sure.

    But here's the interesting bit...

    Badenoch is apparently saying that almost all cock-ups in a minister’s personal life should disqualify them from holding public office.

    Would that condition really give the British people the public servants they deserve, or perhaps simply deter anyone with common sense from going into politics?

    It's possible that the emails, or something else, will make the story spicy again. But as of now, the main conclusions of the day are:

    a) The Mail is a bloody awful newspaper. They were involved in the Torsten Bell fiasco as well.
    b) Kemi Badenoch (or whoever runs social media in her name) get really easily wound up and that makes them look silly, not statesmanlike. The thrill of "yes, we've got him/her" is one of the few thrills an opposition poiltician gets. Usually you haven't got him/her.
    c) Permanews is not a good thing. Mostly, you need to wait and see where the story settles.
    d) it would be funny if something comes out about a Conservative MP that crosses the Badenoch Threshold.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,584
    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    She'd have noticed they didn't charge her £900 or deduct if from rent, I would think. But she gets off.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,550
    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    ***LEGENDARY MODESTY KLAXON***

    This is what I posted at lunchtime.

    As a landlord with properties in different council areas I know the rules are different but that’s why I always get a letting agency involved.

    I am shocked her letting agency hasn’t picked it up, looking at them they are well established.

    Rachel Reeves might have a decent claim of negligence against them.

    Looking at my last few rentals the letting agency confirm there’s no local licensing requirements required/in place.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5363572#Comment_5363572
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,442
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    This should be the best post-1945 year for the Lib Dems. Instead they're...spectators. Watching as a man with bad teeth eats their lunch. Oh, lawks...

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Estate Agents apologise to Reeves over an oversight
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    TOPPING said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    NickPalmer said:

    StillWaters said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MaxPB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Ratters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    As a landlord I am glad I am reducing my portfolio.



    https://x.com/s8mb/status/1983620129083838932

    A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.

    Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.

    ... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
    The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.

    The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
    Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.

    The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
    Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).

    Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
    You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
    Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.

    But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
    We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
    You can make a start, obvs.
    Yawn.
    You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
    Hush.
    Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
    Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
    Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
    Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.

    To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
    He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
    You still don't get it. He is setting arbitrary red lines because that suits his position. As does everyone else on the planet. He then (please do join us, Kini) however portrays those red lines as essential truths.

    Conservatives are much more pragmatic. We don't lecture people at every opportunity on what they should or shouldn't give up (unless we are calling out left wing hypocrites). What grates with me is not that he has made his money through intelligence and application (well done) but that he is drawing his political philosophy carefully around his own best interests where it is easy, given his wealth, to shout for higher taxes on "the people" because they won't touch him. Yet deems it absurd to adopt policies where it would affect him. He is behaving just like every right winger on the planet but denouncing right wingers for their behaviour.
    Bloody hell. What a reprehensible
    shambles that guy sounds! Who is he?
    It doesn't get worse than being compared to a right winger I feel your pain.
    Nice of you. But what's of far more interest (least to me) is those big structural reforms to create a more equal society that you were about to unveil on the PT. It'd be a shame if that's the last we hear of them.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,555
    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,584
    carnforth said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    She'd have noticed they didn't charge her £900 or deduct if from rent, I would think. But she gets off.
    I also note we are specifically told the emails were between the agency and her husband. Not her. That helps too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    BlancheLivermore said:

    Is everyone supposed to have a public PB profile by now?

    There are two private profiles that have posted on this thread

    Yes, privates are out. TSE actions when offenders are shopped.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,980
    viewcode said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    This should be the best post-1945 year for the Lib Dems. Instead they're...spectators. Watching as a man with bad teeth eats their lunch. Oh, lawks...

    Wait until tonight's results come out.

    Wrote he, optimistically.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,391
    edited October 30
    Quite impressed by that agency fessing up. Reputation enhanced imo - human errors happen all the time, it's how you deal with them that matters.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,922
    kinabalu said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    Is everyone supposed to have a public PB profile by now?

    There are two private profiles that have posted on this thread

    Yes, privates are out. TSE actions when offenders are shopped.
    Whoever has their privates out should put them away

    Ta!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,853
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
    Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,423
    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    Moon, I love you to bits, really. But the fox that the Mail, the Leader of the Opposition and many on here thought they saw is now definitively shot. If there was a fox at all, which there probably wasn't. If Badenoch is lucky, she won't have to sack any of her frontbench team in the next few days. Besides, the ethics advisor has already had a look and said that there's nothing for him to do.

    Changing the subject, who do you fancy for Celebrity Traitors? Or, indeed, on Celebrity Traitors?
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,810
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
    Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
    The big takeaway from that poll is the influence that the media, particularly in this case Murdoch press, have on public opinion, with Harry and Meghan having a negative rating 2/3 of that of someone who paid £12m to someone who accused him of rape.

    The only compelling reason to keep the Monarch is that the UK electorate would vote in someone far worse.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,442
    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    viewcode said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
    Having read their statement then yes Reeves is innocent and Starmer will be hugely relieved as I suspect will be the bond markets

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,391
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Wowsa. How'd I miss this.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    viewcode said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
    Having read their statement then yes Reeves is innocent and Starmer will be hugely relieved as I suspect will be the bond markets

    Are you sure about that?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Mexicanpete said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    viewcode said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
    Having read their statement then yes Reeves is innocent and Starmer will be hugely relieved as I suspect will be the bond markets

    Are you sure about that?
    Actually yes because if Reeves had gone now the bond markets could have done a Truss
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,404
    Eabhal said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Wowsa. How'd I miss this.
    Because its FoN with their perfectly acceptable but peculiar previous voting record methodology.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Mexicanpete said:

    Eabhal said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Wowsa. How'd I miss this.
    Because its FoN with their perfectly acceptable but peculiar previous voting record methodology.
    Though it is not out of line with the trend
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,310
    Mexicanpete said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    viewcode said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
    Having read their statement then yes Reeves is innocent and Starmer will be hugely relieved as I suspect will be the bond markets

    Are you sure about that?
    Yes completely exonerated.

    Could someone make sure Big G is OK?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,238
    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fishing said:

    For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.

    I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.

    Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
    Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
    Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
    The big takeaway from that poll is the influence that the media, particularly in this case Murdoch press, have on public opinion, with Harry and Meghan having a negative rating 2/3 of that of someone who paid £12m to someone who accused him of rape.

    The only compelling reason to keep the Monarch is that the UK electorate would vote in someone far worse.
    King Nige has a certain horrible inevitability about it...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,051
    Roger said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    viewcode said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    rottenborough said:

    Robert Peston
    @Peston
    ·
    1m
    PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so

    Reeves is toast!

    Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?

    If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
    I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
    Having read their statement then yes Reeves is innocent and Starmer will be hugely relieved as I suspect will be the bond markets

    Are you sure about that?
    Yes completely exonerated.

    Could someone make sure Big G is OK?
    I am fine and fair minded unlike yourself
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,310
    Eabhal said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 32% (-)
    🟢 Greens: 17% (+2)
    🔵 Conservatives: 16% (-1)
    🔴 Labour: 16% (-)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)

    Changes from 22nd October
    [Find Out Now, 29th October, N=3,065]

    https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058

    Greenie Meanies with serious Maomentum.

    Wowsa. How'd I miss this.
    No one takes FON seriously. Pity now I've become a Zack backer.

    But I look forward to the next poll by a serious pollster
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025