Skip to content

The end of the Keir show – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,804
edited 7:42AM in General
The end of the Keir show – politicalbetting.com

If Starmer goes in 2026 (and there’s no certainty of that) I would expect him to go/be ousted in the aftermath of the devolved and location elections which take place in May which would be the trigger point and given how long the Labour leadership election would take I think the value might be in the latter two quarters of 2026 depending on how much Starmer tries to hang on.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,388
    @Sean_F I have just read properly your header from yesterday. Thank you once more.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,428
    My estimation:

    1) They come for him after an "is that it" budget on Wednesday
    2) McSweeney goes in a few weeks - trying to draw the sting from the fallout
    3) Reeves goes in January - that buys Keith more time to hang on and try and formulate his excuses for May
    4) Big badda boom in May - the vultures start to openly circle
    5) Starmer announces he will go / someone challenges him - unless Labour greatly simplify its processes then yes I think it tips over into Q3

    Whichever quarter it is, he is toast. That whoops I had the toaster on too high toast where it burns your fingers as you scrape the excess carbon off into the sink toast.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,307
    A poor 3rd like Starmer will be at next election
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,515
    Yay, you used my line from last week for the header.

    Tears for Keir’s it is.
  • TazTaz Posts: 22,515

    My estimation:

    1) They come for him after an "is that it" budget on Wednesday
    2) McSweeney goes in a few weeks - trying to draw the sting from the fallout
    3) Reeves goes in January - that buys Keith more time to hang on and try and formulate his excuses for May
    4) Big badda boom in May - the vultures start to openly circle
    5) Starmer announces he will go / someone challenges him - unless Labour greatly simplify its processes then yes I think it tips over into Q3

    Whichever quarter it is, he is toast. That whoops I had the toaster on too high toast where it burns your fingers as you scrape the excess carbon off into the sink toast.

    I think the outriders will continue to snipe but they will get the May locals out of the way first then move.

    I doubt a new leader would want to go in to bat before May.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,936
    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,647
    Labour's Bodge-it is quite a good headline from the Metro...

    If this Budget sinks with the markets, Reeves' departure won't be enough to placate Mr. Market.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,428
    Taz said:

    My estimation:

    1) They come for him after an "is that it" budget on Wednesday
    2) McSweeney goes in a few weeks - trying to draw the sting from the fallout
    3) Reeves goes in January - that buys Keith more time to hang on and try and formulate his excuses for May
    4) Big badda boom in May - the vultures start to openly circle
    5) Starmer announces he will go / someone challenges him - unless Labour greatly simplify its processes then yes I think it tips over into Q3

    Whichever quarter it is, he is toast. That whoops I had the toaster on too high toast where it burns your fingers as you scrape the excess carbon off into the sink toast.

    I think the outriders will continue to snipe but they will get the May locals out of the way first then move.

    I doubt a new leader would want to go in to bat before May.
    Oh I entirely agree, but I think its possible now to consider that the Number 10 operation falls apart (McSweeney) and that the Chancellor herself has to fall
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,936
    Labour’s left split over claims 80 MPs could move against Starmer

    Members of Tribune are at each other’s throats after the caucus launched a WhatsApp group that excluded some members


    Left-wing Labour MPs have turned on one another over briefings that a relaunch of the Tribune caucus could pave the way to challenging Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.

    Clive Efford, who helped to re-establish the group in 2017 but handed over the reins this month, said “someone is taking for granted that they can dictate to the group”.

    It followed a story in The Times that said senior members of the newly refreshed group privately claimed to have 80 MPs willing to launch a leadership challenge to Starmer.

    A split also emerged between newer and longer-serving MPs in Tribune, and concerns were raised about the group no longer being “a safe place for debate” and having an “age bar”.

    The private remarks, made in WhatsApp group exchanges leaked to The Times, suggest a nervousness among those on the soft left of the party about overt moves to dislodge Starmer.

    Louise Haigh, who took over leadership of Tribune this month, sought to reassure members that the briefing was “pure fiction” and that a meeting held on Tuesday was “solely focused on the budget”, instead of Starmer’s future.

    “I’d hope that no one would think any of their colleagues would be daft enough to brief out something so stupid,” she wrote.

    Efford also said he believed the claims were “tittle tattle”, but sought to warn other MPs against over-zealous briefings.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/left-wing-labour-mps-keir-starmer-leadership-9d8jpzcsv
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,069
    July-September looks the value to me. After the May elections and in time for the Conference.

    It takes a while for the process to complete.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,647

    Labour’s left split over claims 80 MPs could move against Starmer

    Members of Tribune are at each other’s throats after the caucus launched a WhatsApp group that excluded some members


    Left-wing Labour MPs have turned on one another over briefings that a relaunch of the Tribune caucus could pave the way to challenging Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.

    Clive Efford, who helped to re-establish the group in 2017 but handed over the reins this month, said “someone is taking for granted that they can dictate to the group”.

    It followed a story in The Times that said senior members of the newly refreshed group privately claimed to have 80 MPs willing to launch a leadership challenge to Starmer.

    A split also emerged between newer and longer-serving MPs in Tribune, and concerns were raised about the group no longer being “a safe place for debate” and having an “age bar”.

    The private remarks, made in WhatsApp group exchanges leaked to The Times, suggest a nervousness among those on the soft left of the party about overt moves to dislodge Starmer.

    Louise Haigh, who took over leadership of Tribune this month, sought to reassure members that the briefing was “pure fiction” and that a meeting held on Tuesday was “solely focused on the budget”, instead of Starmer’s future.

    “I’d hope that no one would think any of their colleagues would be daft enough to brief out something so stupid,” she wrote.

    Efford also said he believed the claims were “tittle tattle”, but sought to warn other MPs against over-zealous briefings.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/left-wing-labour-mps-keir-starmer-leadership-9d8jpzcsv

    Splitters!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,751
    Taz said:

    Yay, you used my line from last week for the header.

    Tears for Keir’s it is.

    It may well be that Everybody Wants To Rule The World, or this bit of it anyway.

    But can the Labour party find someone to Change to?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,647

    Taz said:

    Yay, you used my line from last week for the header.

    Tears for Keir’s it is.

    It may well be that Everybody Wants To Rule The World, or this bit of it anyway.

    But can the Labour party find someone to Change to?
    It's a Mad World...so maybe.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,023
    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,936
    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Boris style, a ministerial revolt.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,006

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339
    edited 8:10AM
    On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.

    For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,751
    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    As 2019-24 showed, the rules don't offer much protection these days. Once you are a goner, ministers refuse to serve under you and that's that.

    What keeps him in place is the lack of an alternative.

    Meanwhile, is there a possibility that dumping Major Morgan (the utter organ) strengthens the government, rather than weakening it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,006
    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900
    Elon Musk’s Doge ‘no longer exists’ after contract ended early
    Tesla billionaire left White House in April after explosive fallout with Donald Trump and unit has now been disbanded

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/24/elon-musk-doge-no-longer-exists-contract-ended-early-usa/ (£££)
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,388

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
    That doesn't sound unlike the Conservatives' system of letters, except that the letters don't have to specify a replacement candidate.

    Good morning, everybody.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The Greens already have most of the 'young Corbynite' vote, but they're not big in the islamist/anti-Gaza vote. Whether it makes tactical sense for them to go fishing in that pool is of course another matter, as is whether Zack would want another high-profile social media ego inside his tent?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    Elon Musk’s Doge ‘no longer exists’ after contract ended early
    Tesla billionaire left White House in April after explosive fallout with Donald Trump and unit has now been disbanded

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/24/elon-musk-doge-no-longer-exists-contract-ended-early-usa/ (£££)

    Hopefully they've made a nice administrative saving by getting rid of all those unproductive jobs working in DOGE.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,006
    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The Greens already have most of the 'young Corbynite' vote, but they're not big in the islamist/anti-Gaza vote. Whether it makes tactical sense for them to go fishing in that pool is of course another matter, as is whether Zack would want another high-profile social media ego inside his tent?
    Well, he's said in public that she is very welcome.

    Whether he says that in private is another matter.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,006
    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
    That doesn't sound unlike the Conservatives' system of letters, except that the letters don't have to specify a replacement candidate.

    Good morning, everybody.
    20% of the PLP is a lot higher actual number of bods than the Tories!! :lol:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,647

    Elon Musk’s Doge ‘no longer exists’ after contract ended early
    Tesla billionaire left White House in April after explosive fallout with Donald Trump and unit has now been disbanded

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/24/elon-musk-doge-no-longer-exists-contract-ended-early-usa/ (£££)

    And all those Reform copy-cat DOGEs? Have they gone too?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,915
    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900
    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.

    For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.

    Look at how long recent Conservative leaders have lasted, and compare that with the time left to the 2029 election to see if it is too soon for Kemi's would-be replacement to reach 2029 without being replaced themself.

    This millennium:-
    IDS 2 years
    Michael Howard 2 years
    Call Me Dave 11 years
    Theresa May 3 years
    Boris 3 years
    Liz Truss 7 weeks
    Rishi 2 years
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900

    Elon Musk’s Doge ‘no longer exists’ after contract ended early
    Tesla billionaire left White House in April after explosive fallout with Donald Trump and unit has now been disbanded

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/24/elon-musk-doge-no-longer-exists-contract-ended-early-usa/ (£££)

    And all those Reform copy-cat DOGEs? Have they gone too?
    Dangerous things, chainsaws. Toolmakers aren't what they used to be.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,751

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,532

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,622
    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The Greens already have most of the 'young Corbynite' vote, but they're not big in the islamist/anti-Gaza vote. Whether it makes tactical sense for them to go fishing in that pool is of course another matter, as is whether Zack would want another high-profile social media ego inside his tent?
    I would think a sensible anti-Netanyahu position makes most sense without appeasing Islamist or anti-Israel positions. There is lots to criticise in Israel's recent behaviour without embracing "Palestine from river to sea" types.

    If the Greens want to become a mainstream party of the left, they need to avoid being tied to such baggage that turns off the vast majority in the country.

    Your Party is thankfully DOA.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,388

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,668
    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,388
    edited 8:33AM
    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    Is it the difference between being able to find out for yourself somewhere if you know where (e) to look and having the fact published alongside their name & government position?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,915
    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Boris style, a ministerial revolt.
    The PLP submit their “Keir John…” letters.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.

    For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.

    Look at how long recent Conservative leaders have lasted, and compare that with the time left to the 2029 election to see if it is too soon for Kemi's would-be replacement to reach 2029 without being replaced themself.

    This millennium:-
    IDS 2 years
    Michael Howard 2 years
    Call Me Dave 11 years
    Theresa May 3 years
    Boris 3 years
    Liz Truss 7 weeks
    Rishi 2 years
    All the more remarkable when you think that three out of the seven actually won elections, if in one case only just!

    Cameron only just didn't lose in 2010, and if he had lost, the number against his name would probably have been 5 years.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    Is it the difference between being able to find out for yourself somewhere if you know where (e) to look and having the fact published alongside their name & government position?
    Entrepreneurs will see this as a gap in the market. Store all court records. Wait for election. Profit.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    Presumably The Times wanted convictions that had been spent?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,751
    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
    That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.

    Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,532

    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    Is it the difference between being able to find out for yourself somewhere if you know where (e) to look and having the fact published alongside their name & government position?
    Entrepreneurs will see this as a gap in the market. Store all court records. Wait for election. Profit.
    It should be statement on the nomination forms, same as with any other job application.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,069

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
    That final line is an interesting one. It puts Powell in the mix as the not-Starmer, Stop Streeting candidate.

    I might need to have a look at my book on her.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,751

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.

    That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
    Question: Under Labour's rules if X gets the 20% of MPs to nominate, then there is a contest for the leader. Is that contest just between the PM and X, or is there a system where others can join in, and if so what are the conditions (and timetable)?

    Sorry to be so ignorant.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140

    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
    That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.

    Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
    Yet Polanski has achieved record polling numbers for the party, and they’re doing well in by-elections too.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339
    Foxy said:

    eek said:

    Unless SKS resigns how exactly is he removed?

    Labour Rule Book - 2026:

    "Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
    That final line is an interesting one. It puts Powell in the mix as the not-Starmer, Stop Streeting candidate.

    I might need to have a look at my book on her.
    I read that as meaning "a challenge to themselves" - not that the deputy gets a free pass if the leader becomes vacant?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
    That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.

    Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
    Not so sure - a small party needs to get noticed; he's doing that, and as things stand they could surprise dramatically on the upside in the cities, especially inner London, come May
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,514
    I'd go '28 or '29 or later. Getting rid of him would be a mistake. Internationally he's improving and he's slowly getting the chewing gum of Trump and Netanyahu out of his hair. At the same time he's incrementally getting closer to the EU which I think will be the big player next year and beyond.

    Immigration will stop being the big thing and the one trick ponies like Farage will tie themselves in knots or courts. Meanwhile zack is likely to do well on the left and Kemi or an alternative will start rebuilding on a more centrist platform and life will go on.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
    On average, but it’s a very unequal distribution. Older people are, on average, greater users of health services. The average Reform voter isn’t paying the same as the average citizen.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900
    Meta buried 'causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege
    https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-buried-causal-evidence-social-media-harm-us-court-filings-allege-2025-11-23/

    PB is safe though – just ask Nick Clegg.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587
    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    Not really true. Bupa, for example is a company limited by guarantee. No shareholders to pay - all profits are reinvested.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882
    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    Yes. But that is not the same as having to give the information. It is not an easy thing to find out. But it is time consuming, might not work and because names there is always the risk of defamation, and because law you have to take account of spent conviction times.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
    On average, but it’s a very unequal distribution. Older people are, on average, greater users of health services. The average Reform voter isn’t paying the same as the average citizen.
    Something approaching a third of heathcare spending is incurred during patients' last six months of life.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
    On average, but it’s a very unequal distribution. Older people are, on average, greater users of health services. The average Reform voter isn’t paying the same as the average citizen.
    Of course. BTW, I don't know anything about private health insurance in the UK, but I wonder what it would cost to cover for an average individual all the stuff that the NHS covers (even though of course the NHS doesn't always do it brilliantly quickly). In fact, can such cover be bought at any price at all?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,476

    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
    That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.

    Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
    Rachel Millward should be leading the Lib Dems instead of playing second fiddle to Zack Polanski.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    The NHS costs roughly £250 per month per person.
    On average, but it’s a very unequal distribution. Older people are, on average, greater users of health services. The average Reform voter isn’t paying the same as the average citizen.
    Of course. BTW, I don't know anything about private health insurance in the UK, but I wonder what it would cost to cover for an average individual all the stuff that the NHS covers (even though of course the NHS doesn't always do it brilliantly quickly). In fact, can such cover be bought at any price at all?

    There’s stuff private healthcare largely doesn’t bother doing in the UK, like 999 stuff.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,514
    AnneJGP said:

    @Sean_F I have just read properly your header from yesterday. Thank you once more.

    Yes. Very readable
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,689

    Taz said:

    Yay, you used my line from last week for the header.

    Tears for Keir’s it is.

    It may well be that Everybody Wants To Rule The World, or this bit of it anyway.

    But can the Labour party find someone to Change to?
    Nowt but Pale Shelter.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,848

    Taz said:

    Yay, you used my line from last week for the header.

    Tears for Keir’s it is.

    It may well be that Everybody Wants To Rule The World, or this bit of it anyway.

    But can the Labour party find someone to Change to?
    Nowt but Pale Shelter.
    Yes, but they have to be in with a Shout.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    Ratters said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
    We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.

    But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.

    I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.

    The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.

    I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
    2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.

    Also, the relevant figure is actual spend per capita, not %age of GDP. See https://www.health.org.uk/features-and-opinion/features/how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-health-care-compared-to-europe Germany is spending over half as much again as we do. France is a quarter as much. If you want German or French health outcomes, spend more.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,140
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    IanB2 said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
    Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.

    Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
    Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
    That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.

    Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
    Rachel Millward should be leading the Lib Dems instead of playing second fiddle to Zack Polanski.
    She's only been a councillor for a few years but has certainly risen up the Greens' hierarchy very quickly, and is a powerful speaker. She gets on well with the LibDems in her local patch but would be surprised if she came our way, especially if she gets the Brighton Mayoral job.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,689
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.

    For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.

    Look at how long recent Conservative leaders have lasted, and compare that with the time left to the 2029 election to see if it is too soon for Kemi's would-be replacement to reach 2029 without being replaced themself.

    This millennium:-
    IDS 2 years
    Michael Howard 2 years
    Call Me Dave 11 years
    Theresa May 3 years
    Boris 3 years
    Liz Truss 7 weeks
    Rishi 2 years
    All the more remarkable when you think that three out of the seven actually won elections, if in one case only just!

    Cameron only just didn't lose in 2010, and if he had lost, the number against his name would probably have been 5 years.
    Cameron had a clear lead in both votes and seats in 2010.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    A start would be to hypothecate everyone’s payslip with an “NHS Tax”.

    And build from there.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,969
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
    There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.

    For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.

    Look at how long recent Conservative leaders have lasted, and compare that with the time left to the 2029 election to see if it is too soon for Kemi's would-be replacement to reach 2029 without being replaced themself.

    This millennium:-
    IDS 2 years
    Michael Howard 2 years
    Call Me Dave 11 years
    Theresa May 3 years
    Boris 3 years
    Liz Truss 7 weeks
    Rishi 2 years
    All the more remarkable when you think that three out of the seven actually won elections, if in one case only just!

    Cameron only just didn't lose in 2010, and if he had lost, the number against his name would probably have been 5 years.
    Cameron had a clear lead in both votes and seats in 2010.
    Yes, but not a clear win - and not that many seats would have had to have turned out differently to change the post-2010 dynamics. If he hadn't become PM, how long would he have lasted in the job?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,599
    Morning all :)

    Despite the intricacies of the Labour leadership, the truth is not dissimilar to that which has confronted Conservatives over the last 40-50 years. If there is someone else who is clearly more popular than your leader and you want to win an election, replace your current leader with the popular one.

    It may be the popular one will rapidly become as unpopular as his/her predecessor but that's the gamble and it doesn't always pay off but if it gets you an election win and another five years in office it's worth it.

    IF we see some hypothetical polling showing Streeting doing 5/10 points better than Starmer for example, that might be the trigger for backbench Labour MPs looking over their shoulders at Reform to make the move.

    Barely 18 months into a five year term, it seems absurd to be talking about replacing a Prime Minister - there were plenty of mutterings about Thatcher in the dark days of 1980-81 and it didn't seem inconceivable the Conservatives under her leadership might finish third in an election so we've been here before - there's plenty of time for Labour to recover much though many on here would rather write the obituary and bury the corpse here and now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,364

    Ratters said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
    We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.

    But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.

    I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.

    The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.

    I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
    2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.

    Also, the relevant figure is actual spend per capita, not %age of GDP. See https://www.health.org.uk/features-and-opinion/features/how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-health-care-compared-to-europe Germany is spending over half as much again as we do. France is a quarter as much. If you want German or French health outcomes, spend more.
    We've got a higher gdp per capita, and are not far enough behind Germany for those to be coherent figures with the given 11.7, 11.5 and 11.1%s

    GDP per cap 2025 IMF Est (US $) / (PPP)

    Germany 59,993 / ($73,553)
    United Kingdom 56,661 ($63,759)
    France 49,961 ($66,061)

    Implied health spend per cap / adjusted for PPP

    Germany: $7000 / $8600
    UK: $6300 / $7100
    France: $5700 / $7300



  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,900
    edited 9:23AM
    'Careful, You'll Make Me Sound Like a Hypnotist'
    'You know, I thought they were getting bigger'

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jJEjirTMOD0

    One-minute clip of Zack (and the interviewer) doing human.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339
    Pulpstar said:

    Ratters said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
    We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.

    But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.

    I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.

    The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.

    I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
    2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.

    Also, the relevant figure is actual spend per capita, not %age of GDP. See https://www.health.org.uk/features-and-opinion/features/how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-health-care-compared-to-europe Germany is spending over half as much again as we do. France is a quarter as much. If you want German or French health outcomes, spend more.
    We've got a higher gdp per capita, and are not far enough behind Germany for those to be coherent figures with the given 11.7, 11.5 and 11.1%s

    GDP per cap 2025 IMF Est (US $) / (PPP)

    Germany 59,993 / ($73,553)
    United Kingdom 56,661 ($63,759)
    France 49,961 ($66,061)

    Implied health spend per cap / adjusted for PPP

    Germany: $7000 / $8600
    UK: $6300 / $7100
    France: $5700 / $7300



    Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,705
    Yes I would expect poor local elections for Labour next year to be the trigger to remove Starmer. Yet expectations are so low for Labour they might surprise on the upside. In Scotland there will certainly be a swing from SNP to Labour since 2021 just an even bigger one to Reform but that still gives a chance of a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    In London and the big metropolitan councils up Labour should hold on as top party despite some losses to the Greens. In Wales Labour are still likely to be in power with Plaid after the election even if no longer first. Most of provincial rural and market town England where Labour is weakest doesn't have elections next year either
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,882

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
    Thanks. Usually I say it in response to an evidence free assertion about Reform. We may never of course find out, but there is a good chance that we will. We shall both be looking carefully at Reform's next GE manifesto. I shall eat my hat if it promises something derogating from universal health care funded by taxation. And eat my hat again if they actually did it.

    The UK is not the USA. Reform is dangerous but it is neither Trump nor MAGA.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,339
    edited 9:30AM
    HYUFD said:

    Yes I would expect poor local elections for Labour next year to be the trigger to remove Starmer. Yet expectations are so low for Labour they might surprise on the upside. In Scotland there will certainly be a swing from SNP to Labour since 2021 just an even bigger one to Reform but that still gives a chance of a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.

    In London and the big metropolitan councils up Labour should hold on as top party despite some losses to the Greens. In Wales Labour are still likely to be in power with Plaid after the election even if no longer first. Most of provincial rural and market town England where Labour is weakest doesn't have elections next year either

    On the island, we do, but Labour only has the now new MP's council seat to lose.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,912
    Good morning everyone.

    Nice title.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,915
    edited 9:36AM

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
    Are we sure taxes will fall to compensate for a privatised, cost of operation limited health system? Also, "sorry, you have had three rounds of chemo, your insurance has run out so you are not having the fourth and fifth".

    P.S. And I apologise, it would appear Reform voters, presumably the poster is a Reform voter, do know what they are letting themselves in for. As an aside, are you comfortable with all the pro Russian s***?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,197
    This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).

    However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,705
    edited 9:39AM
    Cicero said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
    There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
    Even a speeding fine or fine for breach of a railway bye law is technically a criminal conviction. There is also no requirement to declare a spent conviction in law or finance either unless relevant to the role and certainly no bar on
    entry for minor spent offences.
    I don't see why voters
    necessary need to know about spent convictions their MPs have either although political parties will do DBS checks on their selected candidates and most require disclosure of even spent convictions as does the senior civil service
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587
    Nigelb said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    Oh, I think the Greens are slightly more resilient than that.
    If Sultana joined the Greens and became their currant leader for good raisins would that make Green supporters fruit-cakes?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,580

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
    Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.

    Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.

    The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,915

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.

    That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
    Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,023
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You forget the Trump approach of saying very little, denying what your opponents say and then doing what you want once elected
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,915

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
    Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.

    Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.

    The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
    If he has a 200 majority the HoC won't be a problem, and don't you fancy being a Reform Peer? I'm putting my name down.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,074

    This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).

    However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.

    This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,912
    edited 9:47AM
    Nigelb said:

    A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.

    If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
    Oh, I think the Greens are slightly more resilient than that.
    A very interesting perspective from a former worker in the Lib Dem membership department on the Green membership Surge to 170k.

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-green-party-membership-surge-does-it-actually-matter-78682.html
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,587

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
    Are we sure taxes will fall to compensate for a privatised, cost of operation limited health system? Also, "sorry, you have had three rounds of chemo, your insurance has run out so you are not having the fourth and fifth".

    P.S. And I apologise, it would appear Reform voters, presumably the poster is a Reform voter, do know what they are letting themselves in for. As an aside, are you comfortable with all the pro Russian s***?
    That’s not even close to how private healthcare works in the UK. You’re thinking of Breaking Bad there.

    I’m not a Reform supporter no. But neither am religiously devoted to an outdated healthcare system which is quite happily on its way to bankrupting the country nor instantly dismissive of private involvement in providing healthcare. Because “evil private” or somesuch bigoted nonsense. And Russia can go forth and multiply.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,670

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.

    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend...

    On that score, he's had a fairly free ride for his decade long public dabbling in far right conspiracy theory.

    Farage urged to explain conspiracy theories linked to antisemitism he voiced in US media

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/24/farage-urged-to-explain-conspiracy-theories-linked-to-antisemitism-he-voiced-in-us-media
    Nigel Farage is facing calls to explain why he repeatedly aired tropes and conspiracy theories associated with antisemitism during interviews, after claims the Reform UK leader used racist language in his teens.

    In appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy.

    These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.

    During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.

    Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,580

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Get rid, he's useless.

    General Election now, and here's the winner. He has some super new plans for the NHS that I think all his voters are going to love.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9Sd1MDR1H/?igsh=azFwZWdhcHp1Z2xz

    Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
    I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.

    This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
    I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.

    Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
    You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
    Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.

    Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.

    The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
    If he has a 200 majority the HoC won't be a problem, and don't you fancy being a Reform Peer? I'm putting my name down.
    How useful has Labour's big majority been at getting welfare reforms done ?

    Not that Farage is going to get a 200 majority.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,670
    edited 9:49AM
    Cicero said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.

    In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.

    The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ministers-criminal-records-can-stay-secret-rules-watchdog-xkvld6bnn

    Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
    But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
    There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
    Exactly my thought.

    Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,078
    edited 9:51AM
    Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.

    Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,364
    If we're undercooked for the second test, please can noone say there wasn't an opportunity to sort out some match practice...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cz94pz4eqy1o

    It is understood that none of the England players from the first-Test XI asked to play in Canberra.

Sign In or Register to comment.