I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
The Tories demonstrated well - more than once - that a change of PM absolutely can make things worse.
There’s no serious question to which Angela Rayner is the answer. She can’t even run her own house without screwing up the finances, let alone the country.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
We are currently trialling AI summarisation of outpatient consultations in place of medical notes and letters in my Trust. All part of Mr Streetings grand plan, with costs repaid by making our receptionists and secretaries redundent.
Myself and colleagues have some concerns, not least that we are taking on admin duties formerly done by others at a quarter of our pay, as doing the AI stuff adds 5-10 minutes to consultations. Patients don't seem to object.
It does hallucinate though, including making false diagnoses and even made up pharmaceuticals, so needs a lot of proof-reading, and annoyingly keeps undeleting them when we delete them.
I was with a customer last week who asked why, when I research something in front of him, I use a search engine (to look for primary sources) and not a generative AI.
This is exactly the reason why. The AI will confidently spout bollocks, as you say it makes up drug names and legal cases then asserts them to be true - which means that as the expert you need to carefully proofread and correct before sending to anyone else.
That's an interesting, and HUGE, paper - I make it about 14k words.
That "left moving further left" comment seems to relate to the USA, not internationally. Given that traditionally the US mainstream has no "left" as the rest of the world would understand it, that seems reasonable, and is a move more into line with the outside world. They analyse in "clusters" (eg "right-leaning"), "dispersion within clusters" (has a cluster stretched), and "separation between clusters" (are different clusters they further apart). From the General Discussion:
In Study 1, analysing polarization levels in the USA from 1988 to 2024, we found clear evidence that polarization has increased, mostly due to a period of continually rising polarization from 2008 to 2020. We see that between-cluster Separation has increased, while within-cluster Dispersion and Equality-of-Size have remained virtually unchanged, meaning that America’s left-leaning cluster and right-leaning cluster have drifted further apart while both remaining internally cohesive and equal in size. Notably, the position of the left-leaning cluster has shifted further to the left since 1988 than the right-leaning cluster has shifted to the right, consistent with US opinion in general moving to the left while becoming more polarized.
I'd recommend a skim at least the abstract, conclusions and discussion.
We are currently trialling AI summarisation of outpatient consultations in place of medical notes and letters in my Trust. All part of Mr Streetings grand plan, with costs repaid by making our receptionists and secretaries redundent.
Myself and colleagues have some concerns, not least that we are taking on admin duties formerly done by others at a quarter of our pay, as doing the AI stuff adds 5-10 minutes to consultations. Patients don't seem to object.
It does hallucinate though, including making false diagnoses and even made up pharmaceuticals, so needs a lot of proof-reading, and annoyingly keeps undeleting them when we delete them.
Surely the hallucination of law is just a summary of 852 years of lawyers' letters, following the Migration of Bollocks Over Time principle?
When my physio used an AI secretary for an assessment, he was very careful to explain how his language would change in order to make the machine come up with clinically faithful content.
As an IT/Comms wallah ("Information Systems Engineering"), that is a generalised dialogue whilst still maintaining certain features of what we used to call "structured English" as far back as the 1980s when I was at university; I can't comment on the 1970s. The degree included a fair amount of esoteric topics such as Artificial Intelligence and Image Processing.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
There are varied takes on it. I'd probably call it as as PR Cockup with poor processes.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
That's an interesting, and HUGE, paper - I make it about 14k words.
That "left moving further left" comment seems to relate to the USA, not internationally. Given that traditionally the US mainstream has no "left" as the rest of the world would understand it, that seems reasonable, and is a move more into line with the outside world. They analyse in "clusters" (eg "right-leaning"), "dispersion within clusters" (has a cluster stretched), and "separation between clusters" (are different clusters they further apart). From the General Discussion:
In Study 1, analysing polarization levels in the USA from 1988 to 2024, we found clear evidence that polarization has increased, mostly due to a period of continually rising polarization from 2008 to 2020. We see that between-cluster Separation has increased, while within-cluster Dispersion and Equality-of-Size have remained virtually unchanged, meaning that America’s left-leaning cluster and right-leaning cluster have drifted further apart while both remaining internally cohesive and equal in size. Notably, the position of the left-leaning cluster has shifted further to the left since 1988 than the right-leaning cluster has shifted to the right, consistent with US opinion in general moving to the left while becoming more polarized.
I'd recommend a skim at least the abstract, conclusions and discussion.
When you look at the breakdown of the first study by issue, the conclusions rest heavily on shifting views on only a handful of the issues examined, notably abortion and a few other religious-related issues. And it’s true that in the US there has been a shift among the young toward more secular values. Whilst Europe has also become more secular, for a mix of historical and cultural reasons, there has not been the same counter-reaction from our relatively less prominent and powerful religious voters. Politics and religion don’t have the same inter-relation that they do in the US, and religions are weaker here anyway. Abortion hasn’t been a salient issue in European politics for a long time, Poland excepted.
People paying good money to have a civilised meal at a smart restaurant should expect to be able to do so without screaming brats running around the place. If children can't behave their parents shouldn't bring them to the restaurant - take them to McDonalds ffs, you know they'd be happier there.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
There are varied takes on it. I'd probably call it as as PR Cockup with poor processes.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
The wider issue is that society in general has started to make accommodations for ‘disability’, and that these accommodations are being gamed by bad actors, because those making the accommodations have little way of checking eligibility for them.
So we see 40% of kids at Stanford are ‘disabled’, becuase that means they get extra time in tests and single room accommodation, in the UK we see a huge rise in kids taking taxi as to school, or people claiming sickness benefits for mental health issues.
These things all started off with good intent, but have led to perverse outcomes and huge financial costs to both government and companies dealing with the public. It’s also very difficult to row back, because of the risk of lawsuits and public accusations of discrimination.
Alton Towers would be better off offering wheelchairs on demand for disabled customers, and not offering a pass to jump queues for rides.
The problem, surely, is that the pendulum naturally accelerates.
Person A is bad, and the person who is most in opposition to them gets the gig. This means that it swings even further the other way.
And so on and so forth.
Here's the thing, though. I loathe Jeremy Corbyn, and share exactly no political views with him.
But I'd choose him 100 times out of 100 over Donald J Trump. Because while Corbyn is a antisemite, communist, who would wreck the UK economy, I have no doubt that if the voters rejected him, he would walk away.
The most important requirement for any politician is that they respect the will of the people. DJT has -time and time again- demonstrated he does not.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
That's an interesting, and HUGE, paper - I make it about 14k words.
That "left moving further left" comment seems to relate to the USA, not internationally. Given that traditionally the US mainstream has no "left" as the rest of the world would understand it, that seems reasonable, and is a move more into line with the outside world. They analyse in "clusters" (eg "right-leaning"), "dispersion within clusters" (has a cluster stretched), and "separation between clusters" (are different clusters they further apart). From the General Discussion:
In Study 1, analysing polarization levels in the USA from 1988 to 2024, we found clear evidence that polarization has increased, mostly due to a period of continually rising polarization from 2008 to 2020. We see that between-cluster Separation has increased, while within-cluster Dispersion and Equality-of-Size have remained virtually unchanged, meaning that America’s left-leaning cluster and right-leaning cluster have drifted further apart while both remaining internally cohesive and equal in size. Notably, the position of the left-leaning cluster has shifted further to the left since 1988 than the right-leaning cluster has shifted to the right, consistent with US opinion in general moving to the left while becoming more polarized.
I'd recommend a skim at least the abstract, conclusions and discussion.
The US has a problem with identity politics. The individual, and their rights, became subserviant to the group of which they were a member. And that's a dangerous path to go down.
And it is not inaccurate to regard Trumpism as a reaction to it: it's identity politics for the losers from the left's indentity politics.
Now, of course, the US is infused with the legacy of slavery. It still shocks me that -as the slaves were being freed, white European immigrants with no skills were being handed land by the Federal government while those of colour were not.
But we deal with the world as it is, and we must remember that there are plenty of white people who grew up in grinding poverty with no benefit from 'history', and a fair few African Americans who have done very nicely thank you. Your position and advantages are always -and ultimately- unique to you.
The solution is to cast aside identity politics, not to deny the past happened.
People paying good money to have a civilised meal at a smart restaurant should expect to be able to do so without screaming brats running around the place. If children can't behave their parents shouldn't bring them to the restaurant - take them to McDonalds ffs, you know they'd be happier there.
Standards in this country have gone down the pan.
What an unpleasant comment.
It sounds as if they need to organise more than a single dining space.
Labour MPs would be well advised to be wary of acting in haste as it may lead to repenting at leisure. Starmer obviously made a colossal mistake in appointing Mandelson to the USA, but it seems to be forgotten that he did sack him last September. With respect to this week's revelations, he's dealt with them about as well as he could, given the initial error, and has given Mandelson a good bollocking.
Over the last 10 years we've got used to dispensing with PMs rather quickly, but that isn't the historical norm. And it may not be wise to get rid of a PM who won a large majority and has only served 19 months. There are some signs of improvements in the economy and the NHS, and with the other stuff in the pipeline it's quite plausible that there'll be a Labour recovery before the next GE. I guess what I'm arguing is that they (Labour MPs) should be careful what they wish for: there's no obvious replacement, and the electorate may not take kindly to having an unelected PM thrust upon them this soon in the electoral cycle. My advice: take your time, and, if you need to dump Starmer, leave it until 2027.
On the other hand since the runes are suggesting there will not be a Labour PM after 2029, those with ambition to be PM will want to do it now. The only factor is whether they and their backers can organise it in time.
AFAIK the only one with significant backing within the PLP is Rainer.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
There are varied takes on it. I'd probably call it as as PR Cockup with poor processes.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
The wider issue is that society in general has started to make accommodations for ‘disability’, and that these accommodations are being gamed by bad actors, because those making the accommodations have little way of checking eligibility for them.
So we see 40% of kids at Stanford are ‘disabled’, becuase that means they get extra time in tests and single room accommodation, in the UK we see a huge rise in kids taking taxi as to school, or people claiming sickness benefits for mental health issues.
These things all started off with good intent, but have led to perverse outcomes and huge financial costs to both government and companies dealing with the public. It’s also very difficult to row back, because of the risk of lawsuits and public accusations of discrimination.
Alton Towers would be better off offering wheelchairs on demand for disabled customers, and not offering a pass to jump queues for rides.
I would take a slightly more ... nuanced ... line.
Disability has been extended to cover anything where there is a diagnosis.
And a lot of those diagnoses are so minor as to be an irrelevancy.
My son has very poor fine motor skills. It makes his handwriting almost illegible. So he gets special accomodation -and has done since elementary school- to use a laptop to type on, even in public exams.
Being a very rules based society, and the fact he has an 'accomodation' means he is almost certainly tagged as 'diasbled'. But the accomodation is incredibly minor.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
There are varied takes on it. I'd probably call it as as PR Cockup with poor processes.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
The wider issue is that society in general has started to make accommodations for ‘disability’, and that these accommodations are being gamed by bad actors, because those making the accommodations have little way of checking eligibility for them.
So we see 40% of kids at Stanford are ‘disabled’, becuase that means they get extra time in tests and single room accommodation, in the UK we see a huge rise in kids taking taxi as to school, or people claiming sickness benefits for mental health issues.
These things all started off with good intent, but have led to perverse outcomes and huge financial costs to both government and companies dealing with the public. It’s also very difficult to row back, because of the risk of lawsuits and public accusations of discrimination.
Alton Towers would be better off offering wheelchairs on demand for disabled customers, and not offering a pass to jump queues for rides.
Limiting "disabled" to "wheelchair users" is not tenable realistically, practically, or legally.
Here Alton Towers are being insufficiently professionally.
Allowing a disabled person to book a disabled pass, then when they arrive saying "Sorry we gave it to somebody else?". Seriously?
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
Apart from Rory showing his rich man (worth maybe £15-20m) naivety that MPs are "poorly" paid, when they are in the top 2% plus gold plated pensions, and an excellent expenses package.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
It's substantially harder to steal the presidential election if the Dems hold the House, statehouses, governorships, various statewide officiating roles and The Senate. Also once he's lost the House he has no hope of passing any legislative changes to federalize state-run elections. I mean, he doesn't have much as it is but it goes from slim to none.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
The Tories demonstrated well - more than once - that a change of PM absolutely can make things worse.
There’s no serious question to which Angela Rayner is the answer. She can’t even run her own house without screwing up the finances, let alone the country.
If they do go with Rayner, my guess is she''ll be out in a few weeks/months and then Miliband comes in as a Rish figure to manage the election meltdown in 2029.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
Rayner would be a gift for the Tories, Farage would love facing Ed Miliband again.
They may as well keep Starmer if Labour don't pick Streeting.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
Thats not to say it isn't useful. I have a nephew who has ADHD, autism and some features of Tourettes and medication including Ritalin makes him employable, albeit supported employment in a garden centre. It'shis two siblings that got into Cambridge unmedicated.
One thing struck me again politicians and use of tech....leaking governent secrets vis your personal bt email account. That is absolutely moronic. Even in 2009/10, plenty of options for anonymous ways to transmit or store info that only select people could get access to.
According to the New Statesman, Osborne as actually the preferred choice until overruled by McSoonToBeThrownUnderTheBus.
Also amazed me that prevetting before choosing was just a google search. They do kmow that you can have all the bad stuff about you taken down from google if you have money.
We are not just led by moronic donkeys, the system is run by them.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
Rayner would be a gift for the Tories, Farage would love facing Ed Miliband again.
They may as well keep Starmer if Labour don't pick Streeting.
...and since the Labour party seems (probably correctly) unlikely to pick Streeting, they may as well keep Starmer for now.
Their best strategy remains to limp on until someone plausible emerges from the middle of the pack, much as John Major did after 1987.
The trouble for all of us, but especially for the newshounds, is that that's a 24 month game, not a 24 hour one.
(BTW, seconding the praise for EiT's putting the thing in a bit of perspective. And GW. Is it coincidence that they're both outside the bubble, looking in?)
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
They'd string him up from the rafters.
I don't now think he likely to survive long as PM. There was a brief and interesting interview with former chair of the Intelligence & Security Cttee Dominic Grieve this morning. He reckons they can report back on releasing the Mandelson vetting documents within weeks.
I doubt the police enquiry, which will be about Cabinet leaks not paedophilia, will hold things up either.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Throwing lawyers under the bus thinking they wont have receipts doesnt exactly scream intelligent. Her attempted cover up was as case study in piss poor political operator.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
Given Labour's electoral position, it would transparently be a bluff
The problem, surely, is that the pendulum naturally accelerates.
Person A is bad, and the person who is most in opposition to them gets the gig. This means that it swings even further the other way.
And so on and so forth.
Here's the thing, though. I loathe Jeremy Corbyn, and share exactly no political views with him.
But I'd choose him 100 times out of 100 over Donald J Trump. Because while Corbyn is a antisemite, communist, who would wreck the UK economy, I have no doubt that if the voters rejected him, he would walk away.
The most important requirement for any politician is that they respect the will of the people. DJT has -time and time again- demonstrated he does not.
And led 45% of the public to enthusiastically believe the same, meaning many authoritarian options are being trialled.
It's probably more than 45% as the countering polarization will mean some on the other side will similarly give up on the idea of genuine democracy, though there's been no leader to promote that yet thankfully.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Thank you for deciding how I may vote. I’ve voted Labour at every election I voted in.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Throwing lawyers under the bus thinking they wont have receipts doesnt exactly scream intelligent. Her attempted cover up was as case study in piss poor political operator.
The other counterargument is that she was responsible for housing and local government, and neither of those were going that well during her time in charge.
The individual who is sufficiently good at both politics and government remains elusive, even if comparisons with Truss are very generous to Truss.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
It's surely on the money. But it only changes the narrative slightly.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Even though the presidency has allowed him to double his wealth, and his Supreme Court lapdogs have made it clear he won't be prosecuted even for things that were not really presidential acts in any real way, the manipulators can just tell him the Dems will come for him, and he will move heaven and earth to prevent a Dem win.
I'm sure they'd go after him if they could, but they've no way of doing so effectively before he dies, even if he lives to 100.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Throwing lawyers under the bus thinking they wont have receipts doesnt exactly scream intelligent. Her attempted cover up was as case study in piss poor political operator.
The other counterargument is that she was responsible for housing and local government, and neither of those were going that well during her time in charge.
The individual who is sufficiently good at both politics and government remains elusive, even if comparisons with Truss are very generous to Truss.
That is also true, although a tiny bit of slack there, is no minister for donkeys years has managed to square the cricle between what needs to be done, what the PM / chancellor will back and what the public wont revolt at when it comes to building. But all the signs were she was clueless, but that no different from a lot of current ministers and their shadows.
There was also the issue of the workers rights bills that was incredibly poorly thought out.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Yeah, but he was supposed to scam Trump and his goons, not us.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
I mean, Starmer could just say, "**** it, all these ungrateful bastards wouldn't even have a job if it wasn't for me and my brilliant political skills (work with me here 😂 ) winning the election - If I go down,, I'm going to take them all down with me!"
Not very likely, granted. But who knows in these crazy political times, lol!
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Thank you for deciding how I may vote. I’ve voted Labour at every election I voted in.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
So Foxy wasn't obviously wrong in saying "I don't think" Taz will vote for her. (FWIW, I almost certainly wouldn't either.)
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Throwing lawyers under the bus thinking they wont have receipts doesnt exactly scream intelligent. Her attempted cover up was as case study in piss poor political operator.
The other counterargument is that she was responsible for housing and local government, and neither of those were going that well during her time in charge.
The individual who is sufficiently good at both politics and government remains elusive, even if comparisons with Truss are very generous to Truss.
That's my objection too. I just don't think she's at all good at getting useful stuff done, on what evidence we have.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Certainly she was critical in the behind-the-scenes deal making that sorted out a potential government crisis over welfare, and from the story emerging about yesterday, Rayner cancelled her lunch engagement to broker the deal that avoided what was a looming massive revolt by Labour MPs early yesterday afternoon. Doubtless why Starmer didn't appear for the debate. So she's clearly very good at back-room machine politics - as many Labour politicians tend to be, since it's almost a precondition for rising through their party or any trade union.
Whether it makes them good politicians in terms of inspiring and convincing ordinary voters is another matter entirely.
We are currently trialling AI summarisation of outpatient consultations in place of medical notes and letters in my Trust. All part of Mr Streetings grand plan, with costs repaid by making our receptionists and secretaries redundent.
Myself and colleagues have some concerns, not least that we are taking on admin duties formerly done by others at a quarter of our pay, as doing the AI stuff adds 5-10 minutes to consultations. Patients don't seem to object.
It does hallucinate though, including making false diagnoses and even made up pharmaceuticals, so needs a lot of proof-reading, and annoyingly keeps undeleting them when we delete them.
One of the first useful things I thought of for this was 'Quick summary of patient record' that a GP could see before their next appointment. Even better if the patient - and hold with me for the sci-fi reveal - could book an appointment online and give a short description of what it was they wanted to talk about.
The summary might not be 100% perfect - which is always what a busy GP achieves between patients, of course - but might be a help. And cost about £0.00001 per appointment.
There’s dozens of companies working on these things. Multiple ones are offering a summary of the patient’s record before you see them, although I’ve seen more aimed at secondary care than GPs.
What is the Labour equivalent of the Men in grey suits... or is Labour going to wait until Starmer has to go through the ordeal of the document disclosure... make him really suffer... Surely Starmer has to stop Lammy taking over even for a second.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Yeah, but he was supposed to scam Trump and his goons, not us.
Fail.
The scams being currently exposed are all historic not recent, so I don't think your point holds up.
Not that I have ever supported Mandelson. The Ambassadorship was always going to be tricky, but that is why we have professional Diplomats. It should have been one of them, not one of Starmer's mates.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Rayner would also lose centrist swing voters still voting Labour to the Tories or LDs
Rayner could be a left wing Truss. She's shown herself to be incompetent to a serious degree and her left wing approach to 'business' isn't exactly going to enthuse the markets. Or people who work in the private sector.
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Certainly she was critical in the behind-the-scenes deal making that sorted out a potential government crisis over welfare, and from the story emerging about yesterday, Rayner cancelled her lunch engagement to broker the deal that avoided what was a looming massive revolt by Labour MPs early yesterday afternoon. Doubtless why Starmer didn't appear for the debate. So she's clearly very good at back-room machine politics - as many Labour politicians tend to be, since it's almost a precondition for rising through their party or any trade union.
Whether it makes them good politicians in terms of inspiring and convincing ordinary voters is another matter entirely.
What behind the scenes deal. The govt just folded and now won’t even bring back welfare reform.
We are currently trialling AI summarisation of outpatient consultations in place of medical notes and letters in my Trust. All part of Mr Streetings grand plan, with costs repaid by making our receptionists and secretaries redundent.
Myself and colleagues have some concerns, not least that we are taking on admin duties formerly done by others at a quarter of our pay, as doing the AI stuff adds 5-10 minutes to consultations. Patients don't seem to object.
It does hallucinate though, including making false diagnoses and even made up pharmaceuticals, so needs a lot of proof-reading, and annoyingly keeps undeleting them when we delete them.
One of the first useful things I thought of for this was 'Quick summary of patient record' that a GP could see before their next appointment. Even better if the patient - and hold with me for the sci-fi reveal - could book an appointment online and give a short description of what it was they wanted to talk about.
The summary might not be 100% perfect - which is always what a busy GP achieves between patients, of course - but might be a help. And cost about £0.00001 per appointment.
One easy way i have found to reduce issues with Claude Code, is you get it to generate a latex document summarising things. You then tell the Claude.md file about it and to peridically check the summary latex doc with the complete project and badically do a diff, flag up inconsistencies. Its a quick and easy sanity check.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Throwing lawyers under the bus thinking they wont have receipts doesnt exactly scream intelligent. Her attempted cover up was as case study in piss poor political operator.
The other counterargument is that she was responsible for housing and local government, and neither of those were going that well during her time in charge.
The individual who is sufficiently good at both politics and government remains elusive, even if comparisons with Truss are very generous to Truss.
Indeed, but you might say the same about Streeting, who is also very good at the politics, having honed his skills inside the NUS? Yes, Streeting has more obvious intelligence, in an intellectual sense, but also has no track record of being able to govern or manage effectively. The jury is still out on whether the changes he is trying to make to the NHS will pay off.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Trump couldn't even overturn the 2020 presidential election when he was on the ballot.
If Vance had replaced him as President Trump would even want Vance to lose as revenge
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
Rayner would be a gift for the Tories, Farage would love facing Ed Miliband again.
They may as well keep Starmer if Labour don't pick Streeting.
...and since the Labour party seems (probably correctly) unlikely to pick Streeting, they may as well keep Starmer for now.
Their best strategy remains to limp on until someone plausible emerges from the middle of the pack, much as John Major did after 1987.
The trouble for all of us, but especially for the newshounds, is that that's a 24 month game, not a 24 hour one.
(BTW, seconding the praise for EiT's putting the thing in a bit of perspective. And GW. Is it coincidence that they're both outside the bubble, looking in?)
True confession time. At the time he was appointed I very much welcomed Mandelson’s appointment and my reasoning was not a million miles away from that of @edmundintokyo, other than the paedophile stuff.
Had I been aware of the Epstein connections I would have thought differently, not least because it is the number one topic that Trump does not want to talk about and he would not like being seen in the company of anyone with that legacy. Starmer did know and still made the appointment. It was a bad misjudgment and I am not sure saying Mandelson lied is enough.
Some hoo hah about Alton Towers changing the rules for their disability access pass on Facebook. The extensive comments give a clue as to why the country is in the state it's in wrt schools, disability benefits etc imo
There are varied takes on it. I'd probably call it as as PR Cockup with poor processes.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
The wider issue is that society in general has started to make accommodations for ‘disability’, and that these accommodations are being gamed by bad actors, because those making the accommodations have little way of checking eligibility for them.
So we see 40% of kids at Stanford are ‘disabled’, becuase that means they get extra time in tests and single room accommodation, in the UK we see a huge rise in kids taking taxi as to school, or people claiming sickness benefits for mental health issues.
These things all started off with good intent, but have led to perverse outcomes and huge financial costs to both government and companies dealing with the public. It’s also very difficult to row back, because of the risk of lawsuits and public accusations of discrimination.
Alton Towers would be better off offering wheelchairs on demand for disabled customers, and not offering a pass to jump queues for rides.
I would take a slightly more ... nuanced ... line.
Disability has been extended to cover anything where there is a diagnosis.
And a lot of those diagnoses are so minor as to be an irrelevancy.
My son has very poor fine motor skills. It makes his handwriting almost illegible. So he gets special accomodation -and has done since elementary school- to use a laptop to type on, even in public exams.
Being a very rules based society, and the fact he has an 'accomodation' means he is almost certainly tagged as 'diasbled'. But the accomodation is incredibly minor.
Yes, and the concern on one side is accomodation for minor things can be treated (and cost) like accomodation for major things once a tag (like disabled) is assigned, and on the other side there's an understandable fear that tightening the point at which accomodation is given will not just slim down very welcome support, but may also be a pretext to go further and remove much needed support.
And the risk of at least some cases of the latter happening is quite high, so politicians (and others) would very cautious about trying to trim fat by tweaking the point at which mitigations or benefits are given.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Even though the presidency has allowed him to double his wealth, and his Supreme Court lapdogs have made it clear he won't be prosecuted even for things that were not really presidential acts in any real way, the manipulators can just tell him the Dems will come for him, and he will move heaven and earth to prevent a Dem win.
I'm sure they'd go after him if they could, but they've no way of doing so effectively before he dies, even if he lives to 100.
There's also this sort of thing.
Pam Bondi is haemorrhaging prosecutors in Minnesota as more attorneys decide to quit rather than defend the Trump administration’s violent immigration enforcement tactics. https://x.com/thedailybeast/status/2018707070464164234
Principled government lawyers are steadily being replaced by partisans.
If it is actually possible to steal an National election in the US (I really don't know for sure), then they'll have the people in place to try.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Yeah, but he was supposed to scam Trump and his goons, not us.
Fail.
I mean this is generally why you shouldn't do business with scammers, often the person who thinks they're in on the scam is the scammee. This is Trump's whole thing, he's scamming half the nation and they think he's scamming on his behalf.
But this kind of an exceptional situation. To its credit Labour is not well connected with the mad king and his scheming courtiers, and they needed somebody who was.
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Certainly she was critical in the behind-the-scenes deal making that sorted out a potential government crisis over welfare, and from the story emerging about yesterday, Rayner cancelled her lunch engagement to broker the deal that avoided what was a looming massive revolt by Labour MPs early yesterday afternoon. Doubtless why Starmer didn't appear for the debate. So she's clearly very good at back-room machine politics - as many Labour politicians tend to be, since it's almost a precondition for rising through their party or any trade union.
Whether it makes them good politicians in terms of inspiring and convincing ordinary voters is another matter entirely.
I completely agree, but in this context the next leader is chosen by the PLP and wider Labour membership if neccesary.
Fundamental to political betting is understanding the contest and not letting personal politics interfere in judgement.
I have long been a Rayner fan, so possibly not following my own advice on the second.
Regardless of what you think of bitcoin, the idea of investing in a bitcoin treasury company is bonkers. I know initially it was a way around big finance getting money into it, but now they are able to do via ETFs, it double bonkers.
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
Good morning Big G. Nice to see you're still posting. Hope you and Mrs G are well?
Im surprised Farage hasn't been connected to Epstein. usually where there's money, there's our Nige!
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
Polls showed Burnham could have held Gorton and Denton
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
I don’t know what time of day it is where you are, but it sounds like you need a lie down.
I'm serious, Jimmy Saville is dead. Check it on wikipedia.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Yeah, but he was supposed to scam Trump and his goons, not us.
Fail.
I mean this is generally why you shouldn't do business with scammers, often the person who thinks they're in on the scam is the scammee. This is Trump's whole thing, he's scamming half the nation and they think he's scamming on his behalf.
But this kind of an exceptional situation. To its credit Labour is not well connected with the mad king and his scheming courtiers, and they needed somebody who was.
That's an interesting, and HUGE, paper - I make it about 14k words.
That "left moving further left" comment seems to relate to the USA, not internationally. Given that traditionally the US mainstream has no "left" as the rest of the world would understand it, that seems reasonable, and is a move more into line with the outside world. They analyse in "clusters" (eg "right-leaning"), "dispersion within clusters" (has a cluster stretched), and "separation between clusters" (are different clusters they further apart). From the General Discussion:
In Study 1, analysing polarization levels in the USA from 1988 to 2024, we found clear evidence that polarization has increased, mostly due to a period of continually rising polarization from 2008 to 2020. We see that between-cluster Separation has increased, while within-cluster Dispersion and Equality-of-Size have remained virtually unchanged, meaning that America’s left-leaning cluster and right-leaning cluster have drifted further apart while both remaining internally cohesive and equal in size. Notably, the position of the left-leaning cluster has shifted further to the left since 1988 than the right-leaning cluster has shifted to the right, consistent with US opinion in general moving to the left while becoming more polarized.
I'd recommend a skim at least the abstract, conclusions and discussion.
The US has a problem with identity politics. The individual, and their rights, became subserviant to the group of which they were a member. And that's a dangerous path to go down.
And it is not inaccurate to regard Trumpism as a reaction to it: it's identity politics for the losers from the left's indentity politics.
Now, of course, the US is infused with the legacy of slavery. It still shocks me that -as the slaves were being freed, white European immigrants with no skills were being handed land by the Federal government while those of colour were not.
But we deal with the world as it is, and we must remember that there are plenty of white people who grew up in grinding poverty with no benefit from 'history', and a fair few African Americans who have done very nicely thank you. Your position and advantages are always -and ultimately- unique to you.
The solution is to cast aside identity politics, not to deny the past happened.
It’s not easy to cast aside identity politics when the people around you treat you very differently because of the colour of your skin, or other aspects of your identity.
According to the New Statesman, Osborne as actually the preferred choice until overruled by McSoonToBeThrownUnderTheBus.
Also amazed me that prevetting before choosing was just a google search. They do kmow that you can have all the bad stuff about you taken down from google if you have money.
We are not just led by moronic donkeys, the system is run by them.
They are perfectly capable of investigating people properly.
Several friends and acquaintances have got sensitive jobs. The kind where a call is arranged, and a quiet spoke chap asks you about stuff to that happened decades ago. While the quiet chaps are quite good at hiding it, it is clear that you are confirming stuff as far as they are concerned - they already know the answers to the questions.
Regardless of what you think of bitcoin, the idea of investing in a bitcoin treasury company is bonkers. I know initially it was a way around big finance getting money into it, but now they are able to do via ETFs, it double bonkers.
Much like timeshare, the problem with crypto currency isn’t really the crypto currency thing.
It’s that all the major players are a bunch of sharks. At best.
Rayner could be a left wing Truss. She's shown herself to be incompetent to a serious degree and her left wing approach to 'business' isn't exactly going to enthuse the markets. Or people who work in the private sector.
Have left wing economic policies isn't enough to spook the markets (if you're talking about borrowing) - there are countries with a much higher tax burden than the UK, and lower borrowing costs. But if you're looking for a left-wing politician with a Truss-like attitude to balancing the books, it might be Burnham given his previous comments.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
It's surely on the money. But it only changes the narrative slightly.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
It’s fair enough that Starmer wanted someone who could deal with what’s a very unpredictable administration in Washington, but by all accounts the lady who was already there was well-known and well-respected by Trump’s people.
Starmer took what he thought was a calculated risk, and it’s blown up in his face. Politically it could be a matter of life and death for the PM, unless he can prove that Mandy lied to him. Surely a lawyer would ask if there is anything else to potentially come out of the Epstein files, given that it was already known that the two had associated together.
That the association continued after Epstein’s conviction is the big problem. It’s one thing to hang out with the guy who hosts the best parties, but not continuing to do so after he’s been in prison because some of the party girls were underage.
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
Good morning Big G. Nice to see you're still posting. Hope you and Mrs G are well?
Im surprised Farage hasn't been connected to Epstein. usually where there's money, there's our Nige!
Until quite recently, Farage was (at best) the leader of a very minor party. No information worth trading.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Complain the 2026 mid-terms were a fraud to put pressure on federalising the 2028 Presidential Election. He wants to steal that, not for something as lowly as the House/Senate. The plebs don't deserve it.
If Trump doesn't stand again he won't give a toss whether say Buttigieg or Vance win in 2028
The rest of the administration will, which is what counts. He's surrounded by people equally contemptuous of the law, and they have shown the ability to manipulate the ageing narcissist.
Trump couldn't even overturn the 2020 presidential election when he was on the ballot.
If Vance had replaced him as President Trump would even want Vance to lose as revenge
He's a lot more prepared now, as we've seen. 2020 he was in a scramble trying to overturn and didnt have the people in place to do it - Pence found a moral line he could not cross, judges were not playing ball on his frivolous suits, law enforcement wouldn't act on nothing, and when he tried to repace the acting AG with a patsy because they wouldn't persue it he was faced down by threat of mass legal counsel resignations.
None of those barriers are there now. He appointed people explicitly who would have followed his orders in 2020.
You're repeating the error McConnell made that because his attempts to overturn failed there is no worry about someine trying again more competently.
Regardless of what you think of bitcoin, the idea of investing in a bitcoin treasury company is bonkers. I know initially it was a way around big finance getting money into it, but now they are able to do via ETFs, it double bonkers.
Some of the stories about leveraged crypto trading are crazy.
People buying millions of dollars of Bitcoin at 10x leverage, it drops 10% in the middle of the night, they get automatically margin called and lose the lot.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
Yeah, but he was supposed to scam Trump and his goons, not us.
Fail.
I mean this is generally why you shouldn't do business with scammers, often the person who thinks they're in on the scam is the scammee. This is Trump's whole thing, he's scamming half the nation and they think he's scamming on his behalf.
But this kind of an exceptional situation. To its credit Labour is not well connected with the mad king and his scheming courtiers, and they needed somebody who was.
Could have gone to Farage.
Right because Farage would have totally tried to be helpful
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
Good morning Big G. Nice to see you're still posting. Hope you and Mrs G are well?
Im surprised Farage hasn't been connected to Epstein. usually where there's money, there's our Nige!
Until quite recently, Farage was (at best) the leader of a very minor party. No information worth trading.
He's also probably comfortably well off but not one of the uber wealthy with the 'privilege' of hanging out Epstein and co, and without the political connections to get in (he has connections, but until Trump they weren't at governing level).
On one side, she is divisive, she has baggage with the tax affairs, and she hasn’t displayed tremendous competence in the short space of time that she was a minister.
On the other side, she is tactically savvy (see yesterday), she commands loyalty and is in tune with her party grassroots, she has a good story, and she can at least sell Labour values in a way Starmer desperately struggles with.
The thing about Rayner taking over mid-term is that acting in a hurry without a mandate destroyed Liz Truss, and I’m doubtful the money markets will have much truck with a significant pivot left on the economic side. That is why I very firmly suspect that monetary and fiscal policy would stay broadly the same under a Rayner government (maybe a few sprinklings of wealth taxes here and there as a sop for the base). Her premiership would be more a change of emphasis and a more confident articulation of Labour values. The prize would be winning a full term in 2029. A united left would stand a much better chance in that election than Labour do currently.
I wouldn’t vote for a Rayner led party, but then I’m not the target demographic. I can see merit to the change. The Labour Party desperately needs to work out what it is for and to sell a vision to the country. Starmer has shown himself completely incapable of doing so. And indeed with the dark lord of New Labour out of the picture, that centrist vision of a social democratic middle road Labour Party that doesn’t believe in much but power isn’t looking hale and healthy right now.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
It's surely on the money. But it only changes the narrative slightly.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
It’s fair enough that Starmer wanted someone who could deal with what’s a very unpredictable administration in Washington, but by all accounts the lady who was already there was well-known and well-respected by Trump’s people.
Starmer took what he thought was a calculated risk, and it’s blown up in his face. Politically it could be a matter of life and death for the PM, unless he can prove that Mandy lied to him. Surely a lawyer would ask if there is anything else to potentially come out of the Epstein files, given that it was already known that the two had associated together.
That the association continued after Epstein’s conviction is the big problem. It’s one thing to hang out with the guy who hosts the best parties, but not continuing to do so after he’s been in prison because some of the party girls were underage.
That's the question that i can't see a defence for, for Mandy or anyone who knew he continued to be friendly with Epstein.
I don't even understand what people think Starmer did wrong on the Mandelson thing. In their wisdom the people of the United States of America elected a mad pedophile scammer who only gets along with other people who are also mad, pedophiles, scammers or multiple of the above. The UK depends for it's security on the United States, a situation made worse by Brexit which happened through no fault of Starmer's.
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
A very astute post. It's too easy to get swept up in the moment
It's surely on the money. But it only changes the narrative slightly.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
It’s fair enough that Starmer wanted someone who could deal with what’s a very unpredictable administration in Washington, but by all accounts the lady who was already there was well-known and well-respected by Trump’s people.
Starmer took what he thought was a calculated risk, and it’s blown up in his face. Politically it could be a matter of life and death for the PM, unless he can prove that Mandy lied to him. Surely a lawyer would ask if there is anything else to potentially come out of the Epstein files, given that it was already known that the two had associated together.
That the association continued after Epstein’s conviction is the big problem. It’s one thing to hang out with the guy who hosts the best parties, but not continuing to do so after he’s been in prison because some of the party girls were underage.
Indeed. Even if Starmer's choice was wise, in terms of calculated risk (being 'respected' by Trump doesn't count for much; having leverage over him is a lot more powerful), it was always an immoral choice. But, back when he was appointed, I can't recall how likely it was looking that the Epstein files were heading for publication - wasn't Trump & co. trying to avoid doing so?
I think he's good value there. Why is Burnham even considered when he's not in MP and has no route of getting into the Commons?
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
I assume his association with Mandleson and Starmerism is knocking Streeting's perceived chances?
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
That's a good point, because Starmer has it within his power alone to call an election. That threat was the thing that really kept Brown going until 2010 though it didn't do much to save Johnson (or the Loopy One)
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
There's no way that Starmer is calling an early election. On current polling it would be a Labour meltdown, probably losing his own seat too. A leadership challenge in the PLP is far more winnable.
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of thevotes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
Thank you for deciding how I may vote. I’ve voted Labour at every election I voted in.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
If Labour does apppoint Rayner, they have finally caught up with the Tories in having a female leader (albeit it has taken half a century to catch up).
The markets will be wary of her "left-wing credentials", which will likely box in what she can actually achieve. Not sure if that will satisfy those MPs putting their faith in her.
As an aside, I think the LibDems will need to move on from Davey. I reckon Daisy Cooper will be leading the LibDems within 6 months of PM Ange...
Comments
Negotiating this situation required someone who could get along with the Trump people. They couldn't send someone mad because the whole point is to negotiate this very complicated and delicate mad king situation. Labour isn't exactly overflowing with pedophile scammers who are skilled at negotiation. Who was he supposed to send? Jimmy Saville is already dead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/articles/c4g51n3n8v8o
There’s no serious question to which Angela Rayner is the answer. She can’t even run her own house without screwing up the finances, let alone the country.
40% of students at Stanford are now ‘disabled’.
https://x.com/owengregorian/status/2018665259385442690
https://x.com/dkthomp/status/1995899910009626790
https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social/post/3me3j4vyads2y
The reason for the political polarisation of the last decade and a half, is that the left have moved a lot further left in their views.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/2/251428/479919/A-new-measure-of-issue-polarization-using-k-means
https://x.com/kangminjlee/status/2019202512264606035
https://x.com/g_s_bhogal/status/2019047132129272274
This is exactly the reason why. The AI will confidently spout bollocks, as you say it makes up drug names and legal cases then asserts them to be true - which means that as the expert you need to carefully proofread and correct before sending to anyone else.
That "left moving further left" comment seems to relate to the USA, not internationally. Given that traditionally the US mainstream has no "left" as the rest of the world would understand it, that seems reasonable, and is a move more into line with the outside world. They analyse in "clusters" (eg "right-leaning"), "dispersion within clusters" (has a cluster stretched), and "separation between clusters" (are different clusters they further apart). From the General Discussion:
In Study 1, analysing polarization levels in the USA from 1988 to 2024, we found clear evidence that polarization has increased, mostly due to a period of continually rising polarization from 2008 to 2020. We see that between-cluster Separation has increased, while within-cluster Dispersion and Equality-of-Size have remained virtually unchanged, meaning that America’s left-leaning cluster and right-leaning cluster have drifted further apart while both remaining internally cohesive and equal in size. Notably, the position of the left-leaning cluster has shifted further to the left since 1988 than the right-leaning cluster has shifted to the right, consistent with US opinion in general moving to the left while becoming more polarized.
I'd recommend a skim at least the abstract, conclusions and discussion.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/2/251428/479919/A-new-measure-of-issue-polarization-using-k-means
When my physio used an AI secretary for an assessment, he was very careful to explain how his language would change in order to make the machine come up with clinically faithful content.
As an IT/Comms wallah ("Information Systems Engineering"), that is a generalised dialogue whilst still maintaining certain features of what we used to call "structured English" as far back as the 1980s when I was at university; I can't comment on the 1970s. The degree included a fair amount of esoteric topics such as Artificial Intelligence and Image Processing.
(I'd say they could start lending out shooting sticks for a deposit.)
ITVx: Heather Giles has Early Onset Parkinsons disease and pre-booked the passes to Alton Towers but was told on the day there were none left.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-09-02/i-just-had-to-suffer-disabled-woman-had-to-crawl-along-queue-at-theme-park
GB News: (Who forced them?) Alton Towers forced to ban people with 'anxiety' from using disability queue-jump pass
https://www.gbnews.com/news/alton-towers-anxiety-disability-queue-jump-pass
Telegraph: Theme park changes rules after complaints from visitors with mobility problems over longer ‘fast lane’ queues
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/0482a1089407faa9
So we see 40% of kids at Stanford are ‘disabled’, becuase that means they get extra time in tests and single room accommodation, in the UK we see a huge rise in kids taking taxi as to school, or people claiming sickness benefits for mental health issues.
These things all started off with good intent, but have led to perverse outcomes and huge financial costs to both government and companies dealing with the public. It’s also very difficult to row back, because of the risk of lawsuits and public accusations of discrimination.
Alton Towers would be better off offering wheelchairs on demand for disabled customers, and not offering a pass to jump queues for rides.
£74 million for clean energy upgrades to cut bills for public buildings and create savings for frontline services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clean-energy-upgrades-for-hospitals-and-military-sites
Government press release.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/04/peter-mandelson-house-of-lords-second-chamber
Person A is bad, and the person who is most in opposition to them gets the gig. This means that it swings even further the other way.
And so on and so forth.
Here's the thing, though. I loathe Jeremy Corbyn, and share exactly no political views with him.
But I'd choose him 100 times out of 100 over Donald J Trump. Because while Corbyn is a antisemite, communist, who would wreck the UK economy, I have no doubt that if the voters rejected him, he would walk away.
The most important requirement for any politician is that they respect the will of the people. DJT has -time and time again- demonstrated he does not.
The US has a problem with identity politics. The individual, and their rights, became subserviant to the group of which they were a member. And that's a dangerous path to go down.
And it is not inaccurate to regard Trumpism as a reaction to it: it's identity politics for the losers from the left's indentity politics.
Now, of course, the US is infused with the legacy of slavery. It still shocks me that -as the slaves were being freed, white European immigrants with no skills were being handed land by the Federal government while those of colour were not.
But we deal with the world as it is, and we must remember that there are plenty of white people who grew up in grinding poverty with no benefit from 'history', and a fair few African Americans who have done very nicely thank you. Your position and advantages are always -and ultimately- unique to you.
The solution is to cast aside identity politics, not to deny the past happened.
Trick missed.
AFAIK the only one with significant backing within the PLP is Rainer.
Disability has been extended to cover anything where there is a diagnosis.
And a lot of those diagnoses are so minor as to be an irrelevancy.
My son has very poor fine motor skills. It makes his handwriting almost illegible. So he gets special accomodation -and has done since elementary school- to use a laptop to type on, even in public exams.
Being a very rules based society, and the fact he has an 'accomodation' means he is almost certainly tagged as 'diasbled'. But the accomodation is incredibly minor.
Here Alton Towers are being insufficiently professionally.
Allowing a disabled person to book a disabled pass, then when they arrive saying "Sorry we gave it to somebody else?". Seriously?
Apart from Rory showing his rich man (worth maybe £15-20m) naivety that MPs are "poorly" paid, when they are in the top 2% plus gold plated pensions, and an excellent expenses package.
Rayner 4.1
Streeting 6.6
Miliband 8.4
Mahmood 12
(Farage 12)
Cooper 21
Powell 22
Burnham 25
Carns 26
Rayner would be Labours Liz Truss. Are they really going to go down that avenue? Wes is too connected to Mandelson and anyway he might not even be an MP in 2029 unless he does a chicken run.
Miliband makes sense as Labour likes him and he's not associated with Mandelson. Although I think he'll be a total disaste, that's where I suspect Labour will go next...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/04/labour-mps-say-starmer-days-as-pm-are-numbered-amid-fury-over-mandelson
In this market I've simply focused on laying Farage, Johnson and Rupert Lowe, when the odds offered have been favourable. It's put me happily green on all the Labour choices, so provided Starmer doesn't call a surprise election things are looking good....
They may as well keep Starmer if Labour don't pick Streeting.
If he deploys the threat of calling an election, we'll see whether the PLP has the balls to take him on...
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19105.pdf
Thats not to say it isn't useful. I have a nephew who has ADHD, autism and some features of Tourettes and medication including Ritalin makes him employable, albeit supported employment in a garden centre. It'shis two siblings that got into Cambridge unmedicated.
Also amazed me that prevetting before choosing was just a google search. They do kmow that you can have all the bad stuff about you taken down from google if you have money.
We are not just led by moronic donkeys, the system is run by them.
Their best strategy remains to limp on until someone plausible emerges from the middle of the pack, much as John Major did after 1987.
The trouble for all of us, but especially for the newshounds, is that that's a 24 month game, not a 24 hour one.
(BTW, seconding the praise for EiT's putting the thing in a bit of perspective. And GW. Is it coincidence that they're both outside the bubble, looking in?)
Similarly there is no way that Labour MPs would VONC the government.
So a leadership challenge it will be. I was expecting it after the May elections, hence Rayner as PM as leader at year end in my entry in thr predictions contest.
I don't think Rayner will get HYFUD, Taz or CR voting Labour, but they aren't going to do so anyway, but she may well capture a lot of the votes that Starmer has shed to the left and DNV.
She is a canny operator, albeit one whose domestic life is poorly organised. It is a fatal error to underestimate her. Never confuse lack of formal education with lack of intelligence.
I don't now think he likely to survive long as PM.
There was a brief and interesting interview with former chair of the Intelligence & Security Cttee Dominic Grieve this morning. He reckons they can report back on releasing the Mandelson vetting documents within weeks.
I doubt the police enquiry, which will be about Cabinet leaks not paedophilia, will hold things up either.
It's probably more than 45% as the countering polarization will mean some on the other side will similarly give up on the idea of genuine democracy, though there's been no leader to promote that yet thankfully.
I could quite easily consider voting Labour again based on a few provisos. It helps that I like my Labour MP as he seems to do a bit for the seat. The main reason I’d vote for them being they get the economy going and people feel better off. They also need to stop punishing working people to aid the economically unproductive, underutilised or inactive.
Their latest wheeze looks like the new TV license settlement will see what you pay will be income related. We are rapidly reaching the stage where it is not worth striving at work.
I don’t like Rayner. She’s dense and too tribal. I doubt she could build a consensus. The people who do like her seem to are mainly middle class types who seem to see her as the working class Everyman, or in this case woman.
The individual who is sufficiently good at both politics and government remains elusive, even if comparisons with Truss are very generous to Truss.
The mainline story right now is that Mandleson kept the worst of his associations secret and was appointed by Starmer, not knowing the full story, as 'best man for the job'. Mandleson's career blew up when the real truth started to emerge, and Starmer becomes tainted by implication for being credulous/not digging deeper/managing a crap vetting process - or, just possibly - over-riding serious concerns that the vetting did manage to dig up (in which case he really is gone). As well as over-looking Mandleson's long history of being dodgy.
The real story may very well be that Mandleson was given the job precisely because he lived in the slime and had possible leverage over Trump and/or other powerful Americans. So he was appointed with open eyes, as a calculated risk, that has blown up when the reality of all the slime became public knowledge. In this scenario it's probable that the security service, whose way of working this resembles, knew all of this and were on the inside in terms of the strategy, in which case it's going to be embarassing their working out what they can say about what would have been a sham vetting. In this case Starmer is on the hook for what may have been a wise calculated risk, provided that the whole thing remained secret. Which, now, it hasn't.
I'm sure they'd go after him if they could, but they've no way of doing so effectively before he dies, even if he lives to 100.
There was also the issue of the workers rights bills that was incredibly poorly thought out.
Fail.
Not very likely, granted. But who knows in these crazy political times, lol!
He wasn't really telling you how you'll vote.
I just don't think she's at all good at getting useful stuff done, on what evidence we have.
Whether it makes them good politicians in terms of inspiring and convincing ordinary voters is another matter entirely.
BREAKING: Losses on MicroStrategy's, $MSTR, Bitcoin position officially rise above $3.5 billion.
The company's Bitcoin position has lost nearly -$40 BILLION in 4 months.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2019264469038481700?s=61
Not that I have ever supported Mandelson. The Ambassadorship was always going to be tricky, but that is why we have professional Diplomats. It should have been one of them, not one of Starmer's mates.
Rayner could be a left wing Truss. She's shown herself to be incompetent to a serious degree and her left wing approach to 'business' isn't exactly going to enthuse the markets. Or people who work in the private sector.
Yesterday was high political drama with Starmer looking broken at the dispatch box
I think Starmer did Burnham a favour over Gorton and Denton as I doubt even he would have held it
Rayner certainly compromised Starmer with her demand for the documents to go to the intelligence committee but journalists do not know if she did it to help him, hinder him, or was good politics
I would just warn those supporting Rayner for PM she may have charisma and a good back story but left wing policies are just what we do not need and the bond markets could react very adversely
Anyway my desire for 2026 is Farage and his mob are found out
If Vance had replaced him as President Trump would even want Vance to lose as revenge
Had I been aware of the Epstein connections I would have thought differently, not least because it is the number one topic that Trump does not want to talk about and he would not like being seen in the company of anyone with that legacy. Starmer did know and still made the appointment. It was a bad misjudgment and I am not sure saying Mandelson lied is enough.
And the risk of at least some cases of the latter happening is quite high, so politicians (and others) would very cautious about trying to trim fat by tweaking the point at which mitigations or benefits are given.
Pam Bondi is haemorrhaging prosecutors in Minnesota as more attorneys decide to quit rather than defend the Trump administration’s violent immigration enforcement tactics.
https://x.com/thedailybeast/status/2018707070464164234
Principled government lawyers are steadily being replaced by partisans.
If it is actually possible to steal an National election in the US (I really don't know for sure), then they'll have the people in place to try.
But this kind of an exceptional situation. To its credit Labour is not well connected with the mad king and his scheming courtiers, and they needed somebody who was.
Fundamental to political betting is understanding the contest and not letting personal politics interfere in judgement.
I have long been a Rayner fan, so possibly not following my own advice on the second.
Im surprised Farage hasn't been connected to Epstein. usually where there's money, there's our Nige!
My local hospital gets 90% of its cooling and 40% of its heating from an LSHP (Lake Source Heat Pump), which has been saving 25k Gigajoules of Gas per annum, and has for the last 12 or 13 years.
https://discoverashfield.co.uk/stories/kings-mill-reservoir-at-mill-waters
https://x.com/tompeck/status/2019088133770383854?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
NEW THREAD!
Several friends and acquaintances have got sensitive jobs. The kind where a call is arranged, and a quiet spoke chap asks you about stuff to that happened decades ago. While the quiet chaps are quite good at hiding it, it is clear that you are confirming stuff as far as they are concerned - they already know the answers to the questions.
It’s that all the major players are a bunch of sharks. At best.
Starmer took what he thought was a calculated risk, and it’s blown up in his face. Politically it could be a matter of life and death for the PM, unless he can prove that Mandy lied to him. Surely a lawyer would ask if there is anything else to potentially come out of the Epstein files, given that it was already known that the two had associated together.
That the association continued after Epstein’s conviction is the big problem. It’s one thing to hang out with the guy who hosts the best parties, but not continuing to do so after he’s been in prison because some of the party girls were underage.
None of those barriers are there now. He appointed people explicitly who would have followed his orders in 2020.
You're repeating the error McConnell made that because his attempts to overturn failed there is no worry about someine trying again more competently.
People buying millions of dollars of Bitcoin at 10x leverage, it drops 10% in the middle of the night, they get automatically margin called and lose the lot.
On one side, she is divisive, she has baggage with the tax affairs, and she hasn’t displayed tremendous competence in the short space of time that she was a minister.
On the other side, she is tactically savvy (see yesterday), she commands loyalty and is in tune with her party grassroots, she has a good story, and she can at least sell Labour values in a way Starmer desperately struggles with.
The thing about Rayner taking over mid-term is that acting in a hurry without a mandate destroyed Liz Truss, and I’m doubtful the money markets will have much truck with a significant pivot left on the economic side. That is why I very firmly suspect that monetary and fiscal policy would stay broadly the same under a Rayner government (maybe a few sprinklings of wealth taxes here and there as a sop for the base). Her premiership would be more a change of emphasis and a more confident articulation of Labour values. The prize would be winning a full term in 2029. A united left would stand a much better chance in that election than Labour do currently.
I wouldn’t vote for a Rayner led party, but then I’m not the target demographic. I can see merit to the change. The Labour Party desperately needs to work out what it is for and to sell a vision to the country. Starmer has shown himself completely incapable of doing so. And indeed with the dark lord of New Labour out of the picture, that centrist vision of a social democratic middle road Labour Party that doesn’t believe in much but power isn’t looking hale and healthy right now.
The markets will be wary of her "left-wing credentials", which will likely box in what she can actually achieve. Not sure if that will satisfy those MPs putting their faith in her.
As an aside, I think the LibDems will need to move on from Davey. I reckon Daisy Cooper will be leading the LibDems within 6 months of PM Ange...