Centrism, an ambiguous political term, requires greater analytical scrutiny. After summarising conceptualisations of centrism – and of a centre in politics – that can be derived from existing literature, this article is focused on centrism as a purported set of ideas: a centre beyond left and right. As a case study for this outlook, the centrist project of French president Emmanuel Macron is analysed. A new theory of centrism is then presented – centrism as a structure for political action – which recognises both the lack of political concepts within centrism and the inclusion of a political strategy which makes it an observable phenomenon: a politics which oscillates between left and right. Within liberal democracies, centrism offers a strategy for action, derived from a critique of left and right political establishments. Yet it does so in an ideational context largely shaped by existing ideologies of left and right, moderate and extreme. While oscillation may ease political decision-making, as a strategy, it does not inscribe specifically centrist political ideas. A distinct centrism which transcends left and right remains elusive.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
The BBC, the Press, and the media in general need to generate interest and engagement. Farage does that.
Whether it's from people glad that someone is, "finally saying it how it is," or from people who regard Farage as a toxic pustule on the body politic, he demands attention. So of course the media cover him.
Davey seemed to understand this with his election campaign pratfall stunts that won him enough attention to talk briefly about care policy and the like.
His current strategy, of being the most anti-Trump politician in the village, isn't having the same success. On the one hand it comes across as a bit student politics: no-one believes Starmer likes Trump, but we can see he's playing the suck-up for perceived reasons of national interest, so Starmer is made to look pragmatic and mature, while Davey looks juvenile and foolish. And on the other hand it's all a bit, so what? It's not controversial in Britain to be anti-Trump. You might as well campaign in favour of sunshine and birdsong.
Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please? 1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises. 2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump. 3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?
It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.
It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.
But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.
The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.
I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.
He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.
DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.
We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.
Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.
No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .
Lucky is just telling us who he is.
Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.
You know Trump's playbook is to change so many things so rapidly you don't have a chance to correct one of them before another 5 things need to be corrected..
No, you should have mentioned it before.
Trump will be threatening Greenland again in due course, he's just backed off for a bit. Your accusations of TDS are gaslighting, a year ago people were saying a he'd deport a lot of wrong people and that tariffs would be bad for international trade, they weren't saying that he'd deploy 2500 masked ICE agents to a city to drive in circles around residential blocks and schools abducting anyone non-white and murdering peaceful protesters or that the EU and sane NATO countries would be in a emergency diplomatic huddle to protect Greenland from annexation. It'd be more fun to be discussing Burnham and why the idiot is distracting from the blue on blue psychodrama.
There’s nothing stopping people,discussing Burnham apart from the obvious. They are Trump obsessives.
I said at the time of the US elections tariffs were bad and I’d prefer hapless Harris over Trump. In spite of her ridiculous wealth tax policy.
Until there is a judicial outcome the killings are just killings. Not murder, execution, manslaughter, self defence. Just killings.
But this is PB, if you’re not indulging in your daily five minute Trump hate then you’re clearly a fan.
For their to be a judicial outcome, there has to be a trial or at least some sort of investigation. The Trump administration has blocked that in both the recent killing and the killing of Renee Good.
Is it fair to say we can't call these murders because there's been no trial if no trial is ever allowed?
There is a real problem here in that the DHS is "investigating" the actions of its own agents. Since the agency head, and the leader of the task force have already declared the shootings justified, there is little prospect of judicial process.
And an action under civil rights legislation can't be brought without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice, whose head has also declared the shootings justified.
State police were blocked from accessing both crime scenes - the second time in defiance of a court order.
As noted earlier, the law does not enforce itself.
That is the process by which qualified immunity becomes absolute immunity.
Seeing the US government flail in trying to frame these as anything but executions by incompetent trigger happy goons makes me feel like I owe an apology to the FSB morons I mocked for trying to stage an apartment as a Ukrainian terror plot but planting a copy of The Sims III instead of 3 SIM cards.
There are plenty on the Conservative and Reform sides who are calling for a British equivalent to ICE - probably Vanilla ICE (you see how easy it is to slip in the music references, I don't know why @TSE makes such a song and dance about it).
The idea of semi-trained and possibly armed goons wondering around Britain's streets dragging away people who look at them in a funny way as distinct from their main task which is presumably to find and deport those who are here illegally (however many there are, wherever they are and whoever they are) doesn't fill me with glee.
Who would be the ICE warriors (and there's a Doctor Who reference, you probably missed the NTNON reference in the previous sentence), to whom (if anyone) would they be accountable and who would pay for them? Perhaps we could recruit them from among the illegal migrants - make them legal and get them to shop the other illegals - it might work.
I'm sure when a 95-year old great grandmother who has been here 70 years but forgot to legalise her status is dragged out of her home and thrown on a plane the Home Secretary (or Immigration Minister) will be the first to justify the soundness of his/her/the Government's policy and it will all end so well as it's announced a further 1500 refugees have fetched up to Dover.
I'm afraid that if the other parties don't find a decent solution to the concerns of so many, then Reform will be the only place for the votes of those concerned. We saw it with Brexit - when the politicians ignore people's concerns for long enough, they get an answer they don't want.
Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please? 1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises. 2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump. 3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?
It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.
It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.
But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.
The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.
I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.
He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.
DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.
We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.
Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.
No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .
Lucky is just telling us who he is.
Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.
Who "cocked up" ? Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?
I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that. The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.
No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about". It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question. The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.
Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".
None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
The LDs will be gaining seats in May so Davey is safe.
It is Labour and the Tories who will be losing them and which of Starmer or Badenoch sees their party lose more councillors, councils, MSPs and MSs is the one likely to be facing the leadership challenge
Yes, here in Birmingham the tricky bit is deciding which wards to focus our campaigning on. Labour is desperately unpopular, primarily because of the ongoing and seemingly intractable bin strike, while Reform will be splitting the right-wing vote. So we're hoping to take seats from both Labour and the Conservatives. Oh, and most of the membership in Brum seem to think Davey is doing a reasonable job.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Even r/conservative, the most locked down and heavily moderated Reddit forum I know, has plenty of people saying, "Obviously I support Trump and ICE, but maybe they shouldn't have done this".
Concern is growing on Wall Street that Donald Trump's belligerence and belittlement of Europe could take some of the biggest buyers of US equities out of the market. There are signs that’s already beginning to happen.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Even r/conservative, the most locked down and heavily moderated Reddit forum I know, has plenty of people saying, "Obviously I support Trump and ICE, but maybe they shouldn't have done this".
an instructive example of just how much things shifted for congressional Republicans between the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti: Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach's responses to each incident
Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please? 1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises. 2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump. 3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?
It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.
It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.
But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.
The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.
I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.
He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.
DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.
We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.
Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.
No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .
Lucky is just telling us who he is.
Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.
Who "cocked up" ? Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?
I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that. The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.
No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about". It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question. The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.
Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".
None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.
The US commitment to NATO was in question well before this.
Yeah yeah, that Trump playbook stuff has been doing the rounds, we've all seen it. The point is that Lucky said
"it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for"
and that isn't true.
Permanent damage to diplomatic relations has been caused, around the world Trump's erratic and offensive behaviour is driving other nations away from the US politically and economically, political parties seen to be aligned with Trump are suffering in the polls, a key point has been reached where other countries' leaders now calculate that causing personal offence to Trump and the subsequent retribution are a price worth paying in order to publicly demonstrate support for the values their own voters hold dear and for alliances with other countries that feel the same.
Trump hasn't got everything he asked for. What specific greater rights over Greenland territory has the USA now obtained ? What changes to the political sovereignty of Greenland or Denmark have been promised ? And how exactly has the USA benefited from the further decline in international confidence in the USA and in the dollar ? Do you understand what it means for a country when its government debt yield is climbing at the same time as its currency is weakening ?
Luckyguy was right about the PB Trump experts, which is what I said.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
Centrism, an ambiguous political term, requires greater analytical scrutiny. After summarising conceptualisations of centrism – and of a centre in politics – that can be derived from existing literature, this article is focused on centrism as a purported set of ideas: a centre beyond left and right. As a case study for this outlook, the centrist project of French president Emmanuel Macron is analysed. A new theory of centrism is then presented – centrism as a structure for political action – which recognises both the lack of political concepts within centrism and the inclusion of a political strategy which makes it an observable phenomenon: a politics which oscillates between left and right. Within liberal democracies, centrism offers a strategy for action, derived from a critique of left and right political establishments. Yet it does so in an ideational context largely shaped by existing ideologies of left and right, moderate and extreme. While oscillation may ease political decision-making, as a strategy, it does not inscribe specifically centrist political ideas. A distinct centrism which transcends left and right remains elusive.
As expressed in this clip, this is magnificent but high order nonsense. For the UK, and western Europe, centrism is more or less co-terminus with social democracy (not used as a party name) in which a large and interventionist, high tax and high spend peaceful state interacts with a large and regulated private enterprise to both create wealth and to keep wealth distribution within bounds so that none have to be destitute, untreated etc. There is opportunity and education, inevitably unequal, for all.
It is consistent - unchanged in basic character in the UK since WWII - and completely unlike anything the world has seen before (read any Victorian novel.)
The remaining interesting question for us is whether Reform will be centrist social democrats in this sense. I think they would (ask the voters of Clacton what they want), but hope they don't get the chance to show us, as they are also IMO ethno-centric nationalists run by unreliable lunatics.
BTW, centrist is much more meaningful as a modern political term than 'left' or 'right', normally almost devoid of meaning.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
This is one of Taz's hobby horses.
🙄
Cicero claims Davey is universally adored by his parliamentary party. The article clearly shows he isn’t.
I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham
He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it
He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members
The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor
The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees
Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west
If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea
I think @Big G is right, and, given the circumstances Starmer should have abstained. However, I think Burnham should carry on and complete his term as Mayor, and it certainly would increase the costs, and, sadly, keep the likes of Chris Mason on the TV is there was both a by-election and a Mayoral election in the early part if this year.
If Reform don’t win the Gorton and Denton by-election I look forward to see Chris Mason reporting with a face like a melted welly.
I suspect the by election is now Green v Reform election and I would favour the Greens on the basis that it’s the North West
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
The LibDems need a reason to be taken seriously.
They currently cater for a very small slice of Brtish life.
As do all the other parties, nowadays, especially when you consider the getting-on-for-a-third who care insufficiently enough (or hate them all) to bother voting at all
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
That does depend heavily on whether the government emerges from midterm back in the game - as used to be the norm - or reaches the election still heavily discredited by incumbency - as seems to be the emerging tendency nowadays. If Labour is seen to be on its way out, the LibDems become the centre-left party of choice in a lot more seats
I understand Starmer actually voted to ban Burnham
He really is terrible at politics and just hasn't got it
He should have abstained and left it to the other NEC members
The excuse Starmer and his committee are using it would be unfair to hold a mid term mayoral contest risking a reform mayor
The problem is they cannot see the wood for the trees
Had Burnham stood and won, he would have envigorated labour throughout the region even possibly labour retaining the mayor but now Starmer and his London Metropolitian elite cabal have almost certainly lost the by election and handed reform a coup across the north west
If labour have any sense they will dispatch Starmer post May and start again but under who else, I have no idea
I think @Big G is right, and, given the circumstances Starmer should have abstained. However, I think Burnham should carry on and complete his term as Mayor, and it certainly would increase the costs, and, sadly, keep the likes of Chris Mason on the TV is there was both a by-election and a Mayoral election in the early part if this year.
If Reform don’t win the Gorton and Denton by-election I look forward to see Chris Mason reporting with a face like a melted welly.
I suspect the by election is now Green v Reform election and I would favour the Greens on the basis that it’s the North West
The Greens need either a high profile candidate or one with strong local credentials. With Zack ducking out, it isn’t obvious who that will be?
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
At this rate of attrition it will be a Galloway walkover. I hope Reform can put up a candidate who is clearly not a racist, has never been investigated for sexual offences, has a conscience free record with the HMRC, isn't a banana. No, I can't think of one either.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
I clocked that one at some point on BBC radio. It was immediately put to the LD talking head that this increased the borrowing requirement and she (I think it was a she) changed the subject and didn't answer.
'US President Donald Trump says his administration is "reviewing everything" after the fatal shooting by immigration agents of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.
In his comments to the Wall Street Journal, external, Trump also indicated that he would eventually withdraw agents from the city. But he did not give a time frame.
Protests continued in Minneapolis and other US cities on Sunday, as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warned that America was at an "inflection point"...The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was directly asked twice whether the agent had done the right thing. He responded: "We're looking, we're reviewing everything and will come out with a determination."
He also told the newspaper: "I don't like any shooting. I don't like it." He added: "But I don't like it when somebody goes into a protest and he's got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn't play good either."
The Trump administration is facing pressure from some prominent Republicans, who have joined opposition Democrats in calling for a wide-ranging investigation.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr571qg4m61o
Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right to bear arms that America has ever seen.
Looks like Trump is becoming the greatest opponent of the right left to bear arms that America has ever seen.
The right to bear arms in the US has always meant the right of the right sort of person to bear arms. One of the biggest pushes on gun control laws came from the Right when the Black Panthers started showing up brandishing weapons, like the Mulford Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan when Governor of California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
Not sure what point you’re making
I took it to suggest that the millions of folks who think shooting innocent people dead in the street is a good idea, don’t post on Reddit?
He's already an MLA. Although maybe it would be better to be a full time party leader. He can stand for election as MP at the next GE if they think they will be in a position to play parliamentary politics.
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
Ha.
Although in Carrick's case I note that some were calling for him to be given a longer contract already. Honestly, football people are hilarious. Lets see how they end up the season.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
This is one of Taz's hobby horses.
🙄
Cicero claims Davey is universally adored by his parliamentary party. The article clearly shows he isn’t.
I must have missed "universally adored" in his comment. Sounds like Luckyguy being "assured" that Trump would invade Greenland.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
Perhaps not. Though the implication here is "even on Reddit".
Since Trump's polling is currently 20 points underwater on immigration, it would suggest there is some correlation.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
Perhaps not. Though the implication here is "even on Reddit".
Since Trump's polling is currently 20 points underwater on immigration, it would suggest there is some correlation.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
Hobby horse...neighhhhhhhhhhhh
I’ll talk about what I want. If you want to be one of Pavlov’s dogs crack on sunshine.
Venezuela's acting president Delcy Rodríguez said she has had "enough" of Washington's orders, as she works to unite the country after the US capture of its former leader Nicolás Maduro.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Reddit is not "everywhere". And Redditards are not the world.
Not sure what point you’re making
Reddit thrives on trends. Indeed, that's its whole function. The idea that, because something is "everywhere" on Reddit, it has cut-through is very silly.
Now, I think ICE probably does have cut-through. But not because it's all over Reddit. The posts Scott'n'pasted were self-parodic.
I disagree with the thread conclusion that Streeting one of the winners from all this.
Yes in the narrow sense that Burnham won't be standing against him but that was never going to happen anyway. Burnham was always going to be blocked if the necessity arose.
Where Streeting loses is because the necessity to block Burnham did arise. Burnham has taken the opportunity to force a decision out of the right wing Labour faction running the party that causes resentment, and Streeting is a part of that faction so will suffer some of the damage.
Had Burnham meekly stood aside from any by-election or had Gwynne never resigned in the first place, either of which was plausible a week ago, then there wouldn't have been the fallout.
The winners from this are whoever from the soft left ends up as the one challenging Streeting for the leadership when the time comes, whether that is Rayner, Miliband or Powell, all of whom stood by Burnham. Burnham's inevitable endorsement of which one stands will count for a great deal now. I think there's value in backing Rayner (6/1), Miliband (20/1) or Powell (33/1).
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Even r/conservative, the most locked down and heavily moderated Reddit forum I know, has plenty of people saying, "Obviously I support Trump and ICE, but maybe they shouldn't have done this".
It is unfair. People might have voted Trump to get tough but there is a basic human need for fairness. For the left, it is unfair to kill protestors who pose no threat; for the right, it is unfair to kill gun-owners who pose no threat; for constitutionalists, it is unfair to kill people exercising the first amendment rights to free expression or their second amendment rights to bear arms.
Playing fair is a basic human need. Psychologists have shown it exists in infants and even in animals. This isn't fair. Hence, this isn't popular.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an analyst at Goldman Sachs and a partner in a hedge fund and top financier before election.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
I reckon my Clawdbot could do a better job and has more personality.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
Hobby horse...neighhhhhhhhhhhh
I’ll talk about what I want. If you want to be one of Pavlov’s dogs crack on sunshine.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
Hobby horse...neighhhhhhhhhhhh
I’ll talk about what I want. If you want to be one of Pavlov’s dogs crack on sunshine.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an analyst at Goldman Sachs and a partner in a hedge fund and top financier before election.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
Or goes to show that one man's "brilliant career"....
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
It was rather apt that North London lost to Manchester yesterday, with Starmer looking on as it happened. Because it wasn't just in the football.
'More now from Keir Starmer, who has defended the decision from Labour's national executive committee (NEC) to block Andy Burnham from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, saying it would have diverted resources from other contests - which Labour needs to "fight and win".
"We have really important elections already across England for local councils, very important elections in Wales for the government there and very important elections in Scotland for the Scottish government that will affect millions of people," he says.
He praises Burnham's work in Greater Manchester, but says an election in the region "when it’s not necessary would divert our resources away from the elections that we must have, that we must fight and win". The prime minister adds that he works well with Andy Burnham.
Starmer says: "When I came into politics in 2015 the first thing I did was support Andy Burnham's leadership campaign, the first team I worked in was for Andy Burnham and in the job he's doing now, he and I work closely together.
"Last year, in sad circumstances, we had to respond together to the attack in a synagogue in Manchester, standing side by side, reassuring the community.
"This year with the Northern Powerhouse Rail, we're working together to deliver something that matters to Andy Burnham, to the region, to millions of people.
Venezuela's acting president Delcy Rodríguez said she has had "enough" of Washington's orders, as she works to unite the country after the US capture of its former leader Nicolás Maduro.
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
It was rather apt that North London lost to Manchester yesterday, with Starmer looking on as it happened. Because it wasn't just in the football.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
I agree with you on Davey. He’s not a serious politician and reacts to events. Their policy on WASPI is a cynical vote grab from entitled boomers who are a victim of little more than their own entitlement.
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
Hobby horse...neighhhhhhhhhhhh
There is an underlying point, however. The LibDems have 71 MPs and two guaranteed PMQs each week yet are making less impact than Reform or the Greens. And when Ed Davey does try, it comes across as student politics. Zack can call for Trump to get stuffed; but the leader of a serious, establishment party should not, or at least not in blunt terms.
Ed Davey achieved great results by falling in the water and rigorous targeting of vulnerable constituencies. It might not yet be time to go but he does need to sharpen his act.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
And yet the higher you climb in any organisation, the more you need political skills. The difference is in the focus of those skills. Whether political ability itself is transferrable is another question.
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
Even r/conservative, the most locked down and heavily moderated Reddit forum I know, has plenty of people saying, "Obviously I support Trump and ICE, but maybe they shouldn't have done this".
It is unfair. People might have voted Trump to get tough but there is a basic human need for fairness. For the left, it is unfair to kill protestors who pose no threat; for the right, it is unfair to kill gun-owners who pose no threat; for constitutionalists, it is unfair to kill people exercising the first amendment rights to free expression or their second amendment rights to bear arms.
Playing fair is a basic human need. Psychologists have shown it exists in infants and even in animals. This isn't fair. Hence, this isn't popular.
There's a lot for people to find in common with, particularly Millennials. Into mountain biking (a very nice Surly, a local company), bearded, health worker, gun owner. Former research scientist, sang in a choir. Helped disabled veterans. No criminal record. Baseball cap + sunglasses.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Indeed, Blair was perhaps an exception but even he stood for his first parliamentary seat, a no hoper, Beaconsfield, in 1982 at the age of 29 and was involved in Hackney Labour Party at the same time (no doubt pushed by Cherie who was the better lawyer than him but not as good a politician, losing Thanet North in 1983 when Blair won Sedgefield).
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
It was rather apt that North London lost to Manchester yesterday, with Starmer looking on as it happened. Because it wasn't just in the football.
Lowe at 16/1 and Corbyn at 25/1 are both ridiculously short, but I guess the return from laying them is pretty small for what might be a long wait.
The way Betfair works, there isn't a logical reason why anyone would want to be on the other side of long odds lays, since you have to deposit cash upfront to cover the potential losses. So the offered odds are governed as much by interest rates as by probability.
That's not entirely right, if you're running a book you only have to put up the max liability. So while it makes no sense to lay 25/1 individually, laying 10 no hopers at 25/1 absolutely does.
You're not very sensible tying money up on the next PM market at all tbh, aim should generally be to all green within a couple of years and just keep building on it. Of course in very recent years a "couple of years" is enough to get it resolved!
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
'More now from Keir Starmer, who has defended the decision from Labour's national executive committee (NEC) to block Andy Burnham from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, saying it would have diverted resources from other contests - which Labour needs to "fight and win".
"We have really important elections already across England for local councils, very important elections in Wales for the government there and very important elections in Scotland for the Scottish government that will affect millions of people," he says.
He praises Burnham's work in Greater Manchester, but says an election in the region "when it’s not necessary would divert our resources away from the elections that we must have, that we must fight and win". The prime minister adds that he works well with Andy Burnham.
Starmer says: "When I came into politics in 2015 the first thing I did was support Andy Burnham's leadership campaign, the first team I worked in was for Andy Burnham and in the job he's doing now, he and I work closely together.
"Last year, in sad circumstances, we had to respond together to the attack in a synagogue in Manchester, standing side by side, reassuring the community.
"This year with the Northern Powerhouse Rail, we're working together to deliver something that matters to Andy Burnham, to the region, to millions of people.
"We've already cancelled a load of elections we would have lost (pity we cannot cancel any more), so it would be bloody stupid to trigger another one we would lose"
Based on recent performances, turning a failing team around etc, I think Starmer's detractors have been looking at the wrong person in Manchester... Surely time to get Carrick on that by election candidate list?
It was rather apt that North London lost to Manchester yesterday, with Starmer looking on as it happened. Because it wasn't just in the football.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Like Mark Carney ? "Invariably" overstates it.
Carney is a good counterexample, yes. Although he is perhaps sui generis.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Like Mark Carney ? "Invariably" overstates it.
Carney is a good counterexample, yes. Although he is perhaps sui generis.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
A federal judge (appointed by Trump) has granted a temporary restraining order to the Minnesota police ordering ICE, a federal agency, not to destroy further evidence relating to the killing of Alex Pretti. I mean, what has it come to when such an order is thought to be necessary?
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Liz Truss was right about the fourth option: growth.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Surely there is a fourth - increase the size of the economy?
Can we lay off the pile on on Sandpit please? 1) He's been on the site for fucking ages; I find it vanishingly unlikely he's being paid to make pro-Trump noises. 2) I've rarely heard him make pro-Trump noises. Not thinking Trump = Hitler does not equal pro-Trump. 3) As it happens, I do think Trump roughly equals Hitler. But I am very interested in the views of a seemingly intelligent poster who does not hold that view. Why wouldn't you be?
It's ridiculous to fall into the trap of 'poster x does not hate politician y as much as I do - therefore poster x loves politician y.' We saw this with Boris too.
It seems fair to defend Trump [and the administration] on some levels - many things are arguable. TDS is still a thing.
But justifying the shooting of someone in the street who is protesting peacefully would seem a different matter.
The phrase TDS is often trotted out by trump apologists who don't want to see the whole picture.
I certainly wouldn't apologise for him but what I would take it to mean is not taking each specific action on its own merits.
He might accidentally do something right. Increasingly long odds on that, perhaps.
DS applies to all politicians, including Starmer, who also manages to blunder into doing the right thing sometimes, having announced the wrong thing first.
We were assured he was going to invade Greenland a couple of days ago. That he was a deranged dementia patient who had lost the capacity to reason, and therefore he'd as happily soak Greenland in European blood as eat his morning cornflakes.
Except it has now all been wrapped up diplomatically, he seems to have got everything he asked for, and he now says force was never on the agenda. Yet no embarrassed climb down from our resident Trump experts, just on to the next civilisation-ending outrage and hope nobody will notice.
No one thought he’d actually invade Greenland. And he didn’t get what he wanted . I see you omitted his trashing of NATO troops who died supporting the USA . He’s now given immunity to ICE to execute anyone they see fit and you’re still trying to sanewash his actions . He might not be mad but he is true evil .
Lucky is just telling us who he is.
Yet he’s not wrong to point out the resident Trump experts cocked up there and just pivoted onto the next issue to rant about.
Who "cocked up" ? Are you denying that Trump threatened at various times both military occupation and sanctions ?
I think most of us said that the former was unlikely but not impossible, and I'd stand by that. The sanctions, against US allies, if they didn't hand over territory, were a very real threat.
No one has "just pivoted to the next issue to rant about". It's now a fact, as a result of the affair, that the entire basis of US commitment to NATO is in question. The US itself has in the had few data completely rearranged its national security strategy, and will be withdrawing forces from Europe.
Luckyguy is simply strawmanning again to say "we were assured that he was going to invade".
None of the issues raised by this are going away - not least because there's no formal agreement for the supposed "deal" negotiated by Rutte.
Trump imagined teh agreement from a general discussion saying you can already put troops there. Nothing normal or sensible about it.We should be hastening their departure by telling them to feck off back to their banana republic
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Surely there is a fourth - increase the size of the economy?
Not to the degrowth brigade.
Taxes are already being raised, and we are borrowing more. There will be a reckoning sooner or later.
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Like Mark Carney ? "Invariably" overstates it.
Carney is a good counterexample, yes. Although he is perhaps sui generis.
Although Carney still needs 2 more election wins to match ex drama supply teacher Trudeau.
Not sure if his trade deal with China seeing more Chinese cars in the Canadian market was that popular with Canadian car workers either
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Like Mark Carney ? "Invariably" overstates it.
Carney is a good counterexample, yes. Although he is perhaps sui generis.
Although Carney still needs 2 more election wins to match ex drama supply teacher Trudeau.
Not sure if his trade deal with China seeing more Chinese cars in the Canadian market was that popular with Canadian car workers either
No, but he owned Trump,with is so job done.
He has transitioned well into Canada’s PM and seems more business friendly.
Until very recently, "experience in one of the Great Offices" was pretty much the first line in the Person Spec to be a mid-term replacement PM.
On the basis, the shortlist ought to be Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Mahmood, Rayner at a pinch. Not even Reeves can imagine that she has a chance, but it's striking that neither Cooper or Lammy are mentioned. Not necessarily shocking, but striking.
But paraphrasing a fictional Chief Whip, who is up to the job? You can never tell, unless you suck it and see.
Problem is all of them have been found either wanting (or in the case of Mahmood implementing things that are utterly toxic to the people likely to be voting)
Cooper I also wonder if she wants it - Ed couldn't keep his current very well paid job if she was PM..
For Kemi, Davey and Starmer, the biggest defence against being replaced is the paucity of obviously better replacements.
Which says a lot about the state of politics.
Burnham was/is a rather mild threat, as these things go.
I think you misunderstand the Lib Dems here. Davey is very much respected by his Parliamentary party, even while they are a little frustrated with the polls- he just led them to the most significant result for the party in over a century. Davey has a good working relationship with colleagues, notably Daisy Cooper, who is widely spoken of as his potential successor.
What would probably cause Ed to leave office early is if the health of his wife and or son were to take a turn for the worse. For the time being there is no more than normal anti leader muttering in the party and little enough amongst the MPs. He has solved some major internal problems, got 72 MPs elected and is on the brink of further local government gains. If he chose to stand down before the next election, he would not go until long after the locals this year- once again subject to the health of his family. I have been with Ed in public and there is no doubt that people like him- relatable, intelligent and a good guy... Not what we can say of every party leader in our country. When the time does come, the Lib Dems have a clutch of very bright young new MPs- quite a contrast to the Tory benches indeed I was slightly surprised myself to see how much dead wood the Conservatives still have in the House (Sir David Davis is 77, the young Turk Sir Bernard Jenkin is 66)- and there are some very high quality people on the Lib Dem benches: Al Pinkerton, Calum Miller, Daisy Cooper to pick some names at random.
Reads like one slightly frustrated MP having a bit of a whinge and to fill column space, the Guardian has blown it up into a leadership crisis as newspapers are wont.
If the Press, including the BBC, were to make space for the LibDems instead of rushing to Farage every five minutes things might be different. I'm just waiting for Farage to be asked about his views on the Labour situation.
I have no idea what the actual stats look like, but my impression, when I think about it, is that the LDs get quite a few slots on BBC radio (no idea about telly; does anyone watch it?) but fail to convey the impression, which Reform does sadly convey, that they are talking about the opinions, actions and policies of the next government and the next government's opinions of the present one. This renders all they say a bit forgettable as neither they nor the listener thinks it adds to the sum of useful knowledge.
Listening to Reform matters because most of us want to know how the 60-70% who want them beaten will do it. We already know that the LDs seriously contesting about 100 seats is part of the plan. In the other 530 GB seats they tend to get in the way. That's politics.
Ed Davey was on the Sunday Kuenssberg show yesterday.
I rarely comment on Ed Davey, not least because I do respect the views of some Lib Dems on here, but I just do not see him as his supporters do
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
Did you miss the LD proposal to issue War Bonds?
No - I did listen to that but it's just more borrowing under a different name
Well there are only 3 available options - (1) borrow more, (2) cut spending, and (3) raise taxes. Only (1) is politically acceptable.
Borrowing more is not possible as our credit card is maxed out
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
Starmer was also a QC before becoming an MP and was a top lawyer and barrister, much like Rishi was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and ran a hedge fudge.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
I'm going to say something controversial here, but I think people who build a successful career outside of politics first are invariably bad politicians. This is because politics is actually extremely difficult to do well and if you've not been practicing at it ever since you were a spotty undergrad running to be JCR Treasurer or a young trade union activist climbing the union ladder then you will probably fuck things up.
Like Mark Carney ? "Invariably" overstates it.
Carney is a good counterexample, yes. Although he is perhaps sui generis.
Mitt Romey; Arnold Schwarzenegger ?
It's different in the US. The party machines are much weaker and individual candidates can build big teams of professional political operators to compensate for their own lack of political experience. I would imagine Canada's Westminster model of politics would make it more similar to the UK so Carney is more of an outlier. But he is a remarkable man in many respects. His political ambitions were well know even before he got the BOE role.
Comments
Centrism, an ambiguous political term, requires greater analytical scrutiny. After summarising conceptualisations of centrism – and of a centre in politics – that can be derived from existing literature, this article is focused on centrism as a purported set of ideas: a centre beyond left and right. As a case study for this outlook, the centrist project of French president Emmanuel Macron is analysed. A new theory of centrism is then presented – centrism as a structure for political action – which recognises both the lack of political concepts within centrism and the inclusion of a political strategy which makes it an observable phenomenon: a politics which oscillates between left and right. Within liberal democracies, centrism offers a strategy for action, derived from a critique of left and right political establishments. Yet it does so in an ideational context largely shaped by existing ideologies of left and right, moderate and extreme. While oscillation may ease political decision-making, as a strategy, it does not inscribe specifically centrist political ideas. A distinct centrism which transcends left and right remains elusive.
Whether it's from people glad that someone is, "finally saying it how it is," or from people who regard Farage as a toxic pustule on the body politic, he demands attention. So of course the media cover him.
Davey seemed to understand this with his election campaign pratfall stunts that won him enough attention to talk briefly about care policy and the like.
His current strategy, of being the most anti-Trump politician in the village, isn't having the same success. On the one hand it comes across as a bit student politics: no-one believes Starmer likes Trump, but we can see he's playing the suck-up for perceived reasons of national interest, so Starmer is made to look pragmatic and mature, while Davey looks juvenile and foolish. And on the other hand it's all a bit, so what? It's not controversial in Britain to be anti-Trump. You might as well campaign in favour of sunshine and birdsong.
Davey needs to try something else.
Since the agency head, and the leader of the task force have already declared the shootings justified, there is little prospect of judicial process.
And an action under civil rights legislation can't be brought without the cooperation of the Dept of Justice, whose head has also declared the shootings justified.
State police were blocked from accessing both crime scenes - the second time in defiance of a court order.
As noted earlier, the law does not enforce itself.
That is the process by which qualified immunity becomes absolute immunity.
Seeing the US government flail in trying to frame these as anything but executions by incompetent trigger happy goons makes me feel like I owe an apology to the FSB morons I mocked for trying to stage an apartment as a Ukrainian terror plot but planting a copy of The Sims III instead of 3 SIM cards.
https://bsky.app/profile/explaintrade.com/post/3mdcyl2yyoc23
They can't say "he shouldn't have been carrying a gun" so now they are saying "if you don't want to get shot don't leave your house"
looking at reddit.com/r/all right now is wild. 80% of the posts are anti ice from every kind of subreddit like NBA, climbing, nursing, batman, catbongos and music
@davidnir.com
Absolutely wild. You really should check it out yourself. Every corner of Reddit is inflamed. Forget about “breaking containment.” This is simply everywhere.
@ericcolumbus.bsky.social
Bill Melugin of Fox News may be the best-sourced journalist within ICE and CBP. If he's hearing this, the administration has a real problem.
https://bsky.app/profile/ericcolumbus.bsky.social/post/3mdbzv7b5dk2y
Concern is growing on Wall Street that Donald Trump's belligerence and belittlement of Europe could take some of the biggest buyers of US equities out of the market. There are signs that’s already beginning to happen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-24/wall-street-grapples-with-new-risk-a-european-buyers-strike
@jljacobson.bsky.social
Maybe these fuckers should have thought of that before they laid out the red carpet for fascism
https://bsky.app/profile/tolcser.bsky.social/post/3mdbrbw2igk24
People who post about DisneyLand are posting pictures of drinks with "This would be so much better without ICE"
The regime has totally lost the narrative
ICE Barbie is probably gonna be the fall guy (sic)
an instructive example of just how much things shifted for congressional Republicans between the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti: Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach's responses to each incident
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewsolender.bsky.social/post/3mdcaw66om22d
It is consistent - unchanged in basic character in the UK since WWII - and completely unlike anything the world has seen before (read any Victorian novel.)
The remaining interesting question for us is whether Reform will be centrist social democrats in this sense. I think they would (ask the voters of Clacton what they want), but hope they don't get the chance to show us, as they are also IMO ethno-centric nationalists run by unreliable lunatics.
BTW, centrist is much more meaningful as a modern political term than 'left' or 'right', normally almost devoid of meaning.
You can get sacked for saying inappropriate things.
'It's not my fault I keep getting sacked for saying inappropriate things'
Nicholas Atherton, 33, says he has lost several jobs for rolling his eyes at senior staff and asking colleagues if they were "cuddle buddies"
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/real-life/its-not-fault-keep-getting-33300147
Cicero claims Davey is universally adored by his parliamentary party. The article clearly shows he isn’t.
He speaks about the EU with devotion and the care sector, which I understand with his own family problems, but he just comes over a bit 'meh' and his clowning around does not do anything for me
I see the Lib Dems as a southern English 'Waitrose' party and whilst they should do well in May I do not know where the money is coming from for their policies, not least because they seem to want to hand 5 billion to WASPI women but as per Davey yesterday, insist on immediate increases in defence spending
A pie fell off the shelf, then another, and another.
They were lemming meringue pies.
https://youtu.be/q-VQGdHR3Vw?si=6FbpBV4l7C0fKQW2
I expect the local party would look on an application favourably.
Although in Carrick's case I note that some were calling for him to be given a longer contract already. Honestly, football people are hilarious. Lets see how they end up the season.
Sounds like Luckyguy being "assured" that Trump would invade Greenland.
Are you PB's new hyperbole experts ?
Has a more odious, valueless dullard ever disgraced The First Lordship of the Treasury?
He makes Boris look brave, he makes TMay look charismatic, he makes Brown look stellar, he makes Cameron look wise and insightful, he makes Liz Truss look sane, and he makes Rishi Sunak look tall
They make these promises as they expect they will never have to put them into practise. That bit them when they went into govt with the Tories and tuition fees.
I also find it bizarre Lib Dem supporters seem to have discovered ‘patriotism’, only as a stick to beat Reform, when they would happily hand our sovereignty over to unelected EU bodies.
He was only interested in straw polls.
Though the implication here is "even on Reddit".
Since Trump's polling is currently 20 points underwater on immigration, it would suggest there is some correlation.
I’ll talk about what I want. If you want to be one of Pavlov’s dogs crack on sunshine.
@cnn.com
Venezuela's acting president Delcy Rodríguez said she has had "enough" of Washington's orders, as she works to unite the country after the US capture of its former leader Nicolás Maduro.
https://cnn.it/3ZyNOdG
Now, I think ICE probably does have cut-through. But not because it's all over Reddit. The posts Scott'n'pasted were self-parodic.
David Miliband out and about in Westminster this morning. Shock return on the cards?
Yes in the narrow sense that Burnham won't be standing against him but that was never going to happen anyway. Burnham was always going to be blocked if the necessity arose.
Where Streeting loses is because the necessity to block Burnham did arise. Burnham has taken the opportunity to force a decision out of the right wing Labour faction running the party that causes resentment, and Streeting is a part of that faction so will suffer some of the damage.
Had Burnham meekly stood aside from any by-election or had Gwynne never resigned in the first place, either of which was plausible a week ago, then there wouldn't have been the fallout.
The winners from this are whoever from the soft left ends up as the one challenging Streeting for the leadership when the time comes, whether that is Rayner, Miliband or Powell, all of whom stood by Burnham. Burnham's inevitable endorsement of which one stands will count for a great deal now. I think there's value in backing Rayner (6/1), Miliband (20/1) or Powell (33/1).
Playing fair is a basic human need. Psychologists have shown it exists in infants and even in animals. This isn't fair. Hence, this isn't popular.
Just goes to show that having a brilliant career outside politics does not automatically mean you will make a great leader and be a brilliant politician if you change careers and decide you might fancy being PM with no real ideological conviction and dynamism to go with it
https://x.com/samcoatessky/status/2015746824007537090?s=61
The devil will be in the detail but a freeze and a cap at £250 has been mooted
There’s also been a noticeable well funded lobbying campaign, with appearances on various news shows, from the campaigners against ground rents.
What’s the real issue here and the implications of it if it happens ?
Is it just people with buyers regret thinking they are victims or is there something more to it ?
Handbags
Should have gone to specsavers 👍
"We have really important elections already across England for local councils, very important elections in Wales for the government there and very important elections in Scotland for the Scottish government that will affect millions of people," he says.
He praises Burnham's work in Greater Manchester, but says an election in the region "when it’s not necessary would divert our resources away from the elections that we must have, that we must fight and win".
The prime minister adds that he works well with Andy Burnham.
Starmer says: "When I came into politics in 2015 the first thing I did was support Andy Burnham's leadership campaign, the first team I worked in was for Andy Burnham and in the job he's doing now, he and I work closely together.
"Last year, in sad circumstances, we had to respond together to the attack in a synagogue in Manchester, standing side by side, reassuring the community.
"This year with the Northern Powerhouse Rail, we're working together to deliver something that matters to Andy Burnham, to the region, to millions of people.
"So, there's no question of me and Andy not working very well together. He's doing an excellent job."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr5z0rz893dt
Ed Davey achieved great results by falling in the water and rigorous targeting of vulnerable constituencies. It might not yet be time to go but he does need to sharpen his act.
You're not very sensible tying money up on the next PM market at all tbh, aim should generally be to all green within a couple of years and just keep building on it. Of course in very recent years a "couple of years" is enough to get it resolved!
"Invariably" overstates it.
Taxes are already being raised, and we are borrowing more. There will be a reckoning sooner or later.
Not sure if his trade deal with China seeing more Chinese cars in the Canadian market was that popular with Canadian car workers either
He has transitioned well into Canada’s PM and seems more business friendly.
He was an unremarkable Governor of the BoE.
Cutting spending is essential, or more specifically redirect spending into defence from reinstating the 2 child cap and end the triple lock amomgst choices
There is always a choice but not heaping more debt onto our grandchildren
Braverman gone to Reform
Best news since Jenrick for the conservatives