Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Why would anyone want to take over now when there is energy price spike beyond the govts control and with no good solutions? Let Starmer take the fallout for that too and go for the change in 2027.
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
I would have thought that Labour MPs having a long weekend in their constituencied consoling all the Labour councillors that had just lost their seats would have the opposite effect and send them back with a determination for a leadership challenge.
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Hard to imagine a less Reform friendly constituency in Scotland, bits of Edinburgh maybe.
They also lost the rather more targettable Mid Mife and Glenrothes candidate this morning as he didnt even realise he would be standing. Offords Offal are collapsing
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that Britain’s petrol retailers are “profiteering” from the war in the Middle East by price gouging is not supported by evidence, an investigation by The Times suggests
An analysis of fuel price rises at more than 6,000 petrol stations since the conflict in Iran began found that retailers had, on average, increased the cost of petrol by 12.1 per cent. Of those, only nine forecourts increased their petrol prices more than double the national average (24 per cent or more)
The pump price increase is less than the 18 per cent rise in the wholesale price since the US attacks on Iran began.
The findings cast doubt on claims by Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, that petrol retailers have been exploiting the crisis in the Middle East to make additional profits at the expense of customers.
Lovely spring morning here in the Midlands. Just sat out on the decking in the sun and had a coffee.
It has been a beautiful morning, and I've been busy delivering leaflets and driving back and forth across Brum to pick up more boxes. I am perhaps one of the few people who enjoy driving in the city, the busier the better. It's like a video game for me, but perhaps that's because I don't have to do it on a regular basis.
Why doesn’t Trump just STFU and stop saying the Iranians are desperate for a deal .
Latest US polling shows even more people are against the war . If anything Trump is desperate for a deal and the Iranians know that so will exact a high price .
The GOP are going to be ... well there's only one word for it ... obliterated in the midterms at this rate.
Every cloud etc.
I think Trump will lose the House despite the attempted fixing of the elections, but probably not the Senate.
I expect his autocratic tendencies will worsen, as executive rule with the Constitution ignored.
Fear so. A midterms defeat of any complexion bar the Dems getting 2/3 of the Senate will likely only mitigate the horror not stop it.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
I would have thought that Labour MPs having a long weekend in their constituencied consoling all the Labour councillors that had just lost their seats would have the opposite effect and send them back with a determination for a leadership challenge.
So in effect they’re giving up. And SKS is safe for the rest of the year.
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that Britain’s petrol retailers are “profiteering” from the war in the Middle East by price gouging is not supported by evidence, an investigation by The Times suggests
An analysis of fuel price rises at more than 6,000 petrol stations since the conflict in Iran began found that retailers had, on average, increased the cost of petrol by 12.1 per cent. Of those, only nine forecourts increased their petrol prices more than double the national average (24 per cent or more)
The pump price increase is less than the 18 per cent rise in the wholesale price since the US attacks on Iran began.
The findings cast doubt on claims by Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, that petrol retailers have been exploiting the crisis in the Middle East to make additional profits at the expense of customers.
We pointed that out on here over a week ago - prices are merely reflecting the price the retailer will pay when they are not supplied with the price increase reflecting how they handle it.
Although I suspect Eurogarages are reacting very quickly given the 9p per litre difference between 2 petrol stations that I highlighted over the weekend.
NATO is over but none of the Europeans seem, understandably, ready to acknowledge that or work out what comes next.
None ?
Yes, none. Which European is acknowledging the end of NATO and architecting a new continental security and defence structure. None of them, that's who.
I can see why they don't want to do it, but somebody will eventually. Probably after UvdL's term ends in 2029 and there is a new Commission President. I think France will push very hard for Séjourné beause they will want to be in a position of leadership as the EU takes on more mutual defence obligations.
None are acknowledging the end of NATO, because it remains the best structure for a military defensive alliance without the US. The command structure and doctrines are all ready made and in place; and without the US it's quite possible France would join, rather than lose its position of European leadership. Heads of government aren't discussing or even acknowledging it publicly, for obvious reasons (though the Finnish president for one is coming pretty close).
But this is the sort of thing that's starting to be talked about behind the scenes.
https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2026-03/boell-paper_the-european-pillar-in-nato.pdf ..Today, the theological debate between Atlanticism and Europeanism is largely obsolete. Even the most ardent proponent of strategic autonomy – France – recognizes the current indispensability of NATO, including the added value of unique elements of NATO such as NATO’s Defence Planning Process (NDPP) and the established command structure, and the necessity to include key European non-EU members like the UK, Norway, and Turkey (French government, 2025, p. 24; Daalder, 2025). Instead, there are two competing visions for the future of NATO: the European pillar of NATO and the Europeanization of NATO. This is not to ignore the growing importance of informal, ad-hoc institutions in European security such as the E5, minilateral formats such as the Joint Expeditionary Forces, or new bilateral linkages (Kefferpütz and Bruck, 2025). But these formats are usually designed to support, complement, and/or operationalize NATO’s role, not replace it..
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that Britain’s petrol retailers are “profiteering” from the war in the Middle East by price gouging is not supported by evidence, an investigation by The Times suggests
An analysis of fuel price rises at more than 6,000 petrol stations since the conflict in Iran began found that retailers had, on average, increased the cost of petrol by 12.1 per cent. Of those, only nine forecourts increased their petrol prices more than double the national average (24 per cent or more)
The pump price increase is less than the 18 per cent rise in the wholesale price since the US attacks on Iran began.
The findings cast doubt on claims by Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, that petrol retailers have been exploiting the crisis in the Middle East to make additional profits at the expense of customers.
We pointed that out on here over a week ago - prices are merely reflecting the price the retailer will pay when they are not supplied with the price increase reflecting how they handle it.
Although I suspect Eurogarages are reacting very quickly given the 9p per litre difference between 2 petrol stations that I highlighted over the weekend.
I'm generally fairly sympathetic to Labour, but this knee-jerk tendency to immediately deflect blame on to others is pretty ugly. It's not even necessary, given the that obvious reason for price rises is the war in the Gulf.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
Its not as simple as that. Rising prices of fuel and fertiliser will mean rising food costs, something the government will want to avoid. It may be a few months away, but a 20%+ rise in fertiliser cost will need to be passed on to the end consumer, you cannot keep producing goods at a loss.
Plenty of households around here have taken advantage of solar and heat pumps schemes, all government funded if the boxes can be ticked, end cost to them, nothing. Not all houses can get away with an air source heat pump, larger, older houses are the ones which tend to rely on oil. Most are too remote for the gas main. Also problems for people if you are renting an oil fired property.
We had a big surge in biomass boilers 10 years ago, end result is the tariffs were cut so hard, it became unviable to put them in. An expensive outlay at the start, not offset by the savings.
For most with oil heating, they can absorb the increase, long term there will be pain for everyone. The Iranians are laughing at the stupidity of the Donald
Let’s hope the banks don’t rise to this with inappropriate measures.
Do we really need higher interest rates in response to this ?
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
If their motivation to change leader cannot be sustained for even four days, they should certainly not do it. The decision will affect their political futures and the country's trajectory over the next several years at minimum, and they should be approaching it with clear minds and a view to the longer term, not as some kind of panic response to a bad news cycle.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
If their motivation to change leader cannot be sustained for even four days, they should certainly not do it. The decision will affect their political futures and the country's trajectory over the next several years at minimum, and they should be approaching it with clear minds and a view to the longer term, not as some kind of panic response to a bad news cycle.
Starmer to be replaced as Labour leader in 2027 or later (so to survive this calendar year) is 2.90 to back on Betfair. Seems value to me in light of ‘events’ strengthening his position in the medium term. I’ve had £100
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Its a shambles, the candidate in Aberdeen Central pulled out yesterday. Some of these candidates seem surprised they were selected, other more plausible choices didn't pass vetting.
I dont think any of the withdrawals are in winnable seats for them (yet). I'm not expecting a big Labour or Tory revival, too far gone for that
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Its a shambles, the candidate in Aberdeen Central pulled out yesterday. Some of these candidates seem surprised they were selected, other more plausible choices didn't pass vetting.
I dont think any of the withdrawals are in winnable seats for them (yet). I'm not expecting a big Labour or Tory revival, too far gone for that
Doesn't need much though. 3 or 4% off Reform in underachievement even if we give it in thirds to SNP, Con and Lab probably completely torpedoes Reform towards the 4th to 6th spots.
A large part of me thinks Farage and Offord conducted a tombola to pick their candidates, there's a Reform candidate standing in Scotland who lives near Leciester. Bizarrely I think they are standing in Falkirk East, the grittier parts of which I thought would poll not too bad for them.
I notice the Tories ramping up their Reform attacks quite a fair bit, some of those MSPs placed 3rd on their list are fighting hard to make their coat pegs less shoogly
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
If their motivation to change leader cannot be sustained for even four days, they should certainly not do it. The decision will affect their political futures and the country's trajectory over the next several years at minimum, and they should be approaching it with clear minds and a view to the longer term, not as some kind of panic response to a bad news cycle.
Starmer to be replaced as Labour leader in 2027 or later (so to survive this calendar year) is 2.90 to back on Betfair. Seems value to me in light of ‘events’ strengthening his position in the medium term. I’ve had £100
Likely to be better value on May 8th after the bloodbath.
Given all the circumstances, I'd be amazed and delighted to think the UK economy would grow at all this year.
Agreed !
But the forecast does assume it's all over by the summer, without further large scale damage to Gulf energy infrastructure. ..However, the global economy is in peril from the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war, it said, which means there is “a significant downside risk to the outlook [from] persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East that raise energy prices even further than assumed and aggravate shortages of key commodities...
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Hard to imagine a less Reform friendly constituency in Scotland, bits of Edinburgh maybe.
They also lost the rather more targettable Mid Mife and Glenrothes candidate this morning as he didnt even realise he would be standing. Offords Offal are collapsing
Yes that would be more fertile territory for them I'd have thought. Fife is an interesting place though, politically speaking as well as in all other respects. There used to be solid Communist representation on the council, for instance. North East Fife used to be reliably Conservative, which is almost impossible to comprehend but I remember when they lost the seat.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Its a shambles, the candidate in Aberdeen Central pulled out yesterday. Some of these candidates seem surprised they were selected, other more plausible choices didn't pass vetting.
I dont think any of the withdrawals are in winnable seats for them (yet). I'm not expecting a big Labour or Tory revival, too far gone for that
Doesn't need much though. 3 or 4% off Reform in underachievement even if we give it in thirds to SNP, Con and Lab probably completely torpedoes Reform towards the 4th to 6th spots.
Lab now clear for Scotland 2nd place on Betfair, in to 1.51, Reform out to 2.8. Greens seem a bit short at 6.4
Mr Offord will attract further scrutiny during the campaign no doubt. You are right, 2nd place seems a fair task for RefUK now given they will be largely targeting list votes
Probably have to wait for the always exciting Find Out Now offering this week as theyve just released one of their 'including Restore and YP' polls paid for by Restore Britain. Figures for interest Ref 25 Grn 19 Con 16 Lab 16 LD 10 Restore 8 SNP 3 Others 2 YP 1
Given all the circumstances, I'd be amazed and delighted to think the UK economy would grow at all this year.
Agreed !
But the forecast does assume it's all over by the summer, without further large scale damage to Gulf energy infrastructure. ..However, the global economy is in peril from the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war, it said, which means there is “a significant downside risk to the outlook [from] persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East that raise energy prices even further than assumed and aggravate shortages of key commodities...
Even if normal Hormuz traffic resumes tommorow, I think markets are not yet pricing in the damage already done.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
On the Labour benches; Streeting, Mahmood imo would be better.
Given all the circumstances, I'd be amazed and delighted to think the UK economy would grow at all this year.
Agreed !
But the forecast does assume it's all over by the summer, without further large scale damage to Gulf energy infrastructure. ..However, the global economy is in peril from the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war, it said, which means there is “a significant downside risk to the outlook [from] persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East that raise energy prices even further than assumed and aggravate shortages of key commodities...
Even if normal Hormuz traffic resumes tommorow, I think markets are not yet pricing in the damage already done.
Yep - France 24 were reporting 30-40% of Gulf refining capacity has been damaged or destroyed.
So I don't think @Sandpit's view that petrol will be even cheaper for him will play out..
Reforms NE Fife candidate wirhdraws due to lack of support from the party
4 down in a week.
Massive underperformance in Scotland incoming imo
Its a shambles, the candidate in Aberdeen Central pulled out yesterday. Some of these candidates seem surprised they were selected, other more plausible choices didn't pass vetting.
I dont think any of the withdrawals are in winnable seats for them (yet). I'm not expecting a big Labour or Tory revival, too far gone for that
Doesn't need much though. 3 or 4% off Reform in underachievement even if we give it in thirds to SNP, Con and Lab probably completely torpedoes Reform towards the 4th to 6th spots.
Lab now clear for Scotland 2nd place on Betfair, in to 1.51, Reform out to 2.8. Greens seem a bit short at 6.4
Mr Offord will attract further scrutiny during the campaign no doubt. You are right, 2nd place seems a fair task for RefUK now given they will be largely targeting list votes
The banter result is SNP 59, Lab, Con, LD, Ref, Green all on 14
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
If their motivation to change leader cannot be sustained for even four days, they should certainly not do it. The decision will affect their political futures and the country's trajectory over the next several years at minimum, and they should be approaching it with clear minds and a view to the longer term, not as some kind of panic response to a bad news cycle.
Starmer to be replaced as Labour leader in 2027 or later (so to survive this calendar year) is 2.90 to back on Betfair. Seems value to me in light of ‘events’ strengthening his position in the medium term. I’ve had £100
Likely to be better value on May 8th after the bloodbath.
That is a good time to do it. Badenoch went 1.4 to exit in 25 at the equivalent time last year.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
Starmer staying to the point that Reform isn't the next Government will be a good result for most people.
Because I suspect Farage would be Trump without the competency...
The grifting, the illegal appointments, the abuse of the Constitution and the law, the absurdly inept prosecutions of Comey and James, the threats to Canada and Greenland, the abuse and gratuitous insults of allies, the abandonment of Ukraine, we were not exactly short of reasons to hold Trump in contempt before this but the bombing of Iran is a whole other level of bad. This is going to destroy his Presidency. It serves him right but the price we are all paying for it is severe and is going to get worse.
Not sure that Trump is a loser here.
A possible prognosis is that Iranians will flood the border with Türkiye and onto Europe. Another immigration crisis. At the same time, the oil price will stay very high with all the economic effects that will have worldwide. Oil companies and Middle Eastern potentates will be rolling in even more money (as well as those consulting/investing for them).
Then there are the vulture capitalists who will make a ton of money either by buying distressed assets or taking strategic positions in companies. I mentioned a year of so ago that Berkshire Hathaway stored up €350bn in cash when Trump won. Perhaps they knew bargains would be plentiful early on in this presidency.
He most certainly is the loser. Firstly, if he is to get the Straits open again he is going to have to accept some humiliating terms. The Iranians are talking about reparations. Alternatively, he can throw the US into an unwinnable war (see Brett Devereaux, it doesn't require 7500 words of the blindingly obvious). The US (and the rest of the world) is going to suffer a major economic shock. The GOP is going to be slaughtered in the Mid Terms which may result in his possible impeachment. Yes, there is plenty of pain to spread around, some of it is coming our way, but Trump is going to be destroyed by this.
It is a winnable war but it requires ground troops to bring about regime change. Only a small window to do it though, as you say if the Democrats take Congress in November they will almost certainly try and impeach Trump again
In what way is it a winnable war? The world spent 40+ years trying to tame Afghanistan and that was a far poorer smaller country...
The Afghanistan war was won in 2001 when the Taliban were removed and a few years later when Bin Laden was killed. The mistake was Biden withdrawing US forces which let the Taliban back not the invasion
Point of order. The withdrawal was a Trump 45 arrangement poorly executed by Biden.
I seem to recall Dominic Raab was reluctant to disturb his holiday to airlift British assets out of Kabul. Still, Carrie Johnson got the dogs out so it wasn't a complete disaster.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
This government is clearly superior to the Tory governments we have had since 2010 except for Cameron.
Probably have to wait for the always exciting Find Out Now offering this week as theyve just released one of their 'including Restore and YP' polls paid for by Restore Britain. Figures for interest Ref 25 Grn 19 Con 16 Lab 16 LD 10 Restore 8 SNP 3 Others 2 YP 1
Trump: "The Iranian negotiators are very different and 'strange.' They are 'begging' us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated, with zero chance of a comeback, and yet they publicly state that they are only 'looking at our proposal.' WRONG!!! They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty! President DJT"
Feisty, however she was 7th in the recent Il-7 (D) Primary.
The movement against AIPAC money isn't though and those that are taking are being named and shamed almost everywhere. The Israelis really are pariahs in their own backyard. I think think they have trump to thank
Trump fanboi Nick Ferrari, who a couple of weeks ago was frustrated that Starmer hadn't got involved in Iran, sets a bear trap for John Healey who duly fell in it big time.
Hats off to Nick for a highly successful Gotcha and Healey panicked to Muppet status. Another one we can strike off the Starmer replacement list.
Honest Bob on WATO now as Reform Shadow Chancellor. I know he is a repulsive Charlatan but he is very good at broadcast politics.
"Finally we have proof that Britain’s elites have abandoned intelligence The social group are the least likely sector of society to spend their spare time reading, The Telegraph’s Class Study has discovered"
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
I would have thought that Labour MPs having a long weekend in their constituencied consoling all the Labour councillors that had just lost their seats would have the opposite effect and send them back with a determination for a leadership challenge.
So in effect they’re giving up. And SKS is safe for the rest of the year.
You are all welcome.
That Peston article is the most ridiculous piece of speculation I've read from him for a long time, and is evidenced by the opinion of just one MP. The idea that MPs can't communicate when outside of parliament is risible.
I agree with Foxy's "I would have thought that Labour MPs having a long weekend in their constituencied consoling all the Labour councillors that had just lost their seats would have the opposite effect and send them back with a determination for a leadership challenge." But that won't be needed. The certain knowledge that they'll lose their own seats will be more than enough for the bloodbath to kick off on 8th May, they won't need to talk to losing councillors for the penny to drop.
I hope it's bloody, the bloodier the better. Starmer is so unpopular that it'll be a case of "he/she who wields the knife gets the political credit with the public" and both the leading and outsider candidates will be jostling to be seen to be the first to do so. Rayner will act whether or not she thinks it's the optimal moment because she knows that others will do so if she doesn't, and she won't want to be left standing on the starting block.
"Finally we have proof that Britain’s elites have abandoned intelligence The social group are the least likely sector of society to spend their spare time reading, The Telegraph’s Class Study has discovered"
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Given all the circumstances, I'd be amazed and delighted to think the UK economy would grow at all this year.
Agreed !
But the forecast does assume it's all over by the summer, without further large scale damage to Gulf energy infrastructure. ..However, the global economy is in peril from the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war, it said, which means there is “a significant downside risk to the outlook [from] persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East that raise energy prices even further than assumed and aggravate shortages of key commodities...
Even if normal Hormuz traffic resumes tommorow, I think markets are not yet pricing in the damage already done.
Yep - France 24 were reporting 30-40% of Gulf refining capacity has been damaged or destroyed.
So I don't think @Sandpit's view that petrol will be even cheaper for him will play out..
There may be a local glut if they can't export it. Seems quite possible. But the recovery time for the world economy from this madness is going to be many months into a few years.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Does Trump really care about his ratings now, though? He got the second term and so now it's full steam ahead with scorched earth until November 2028?
This is probably reassuring for those who think he might do an "Emperor Palpatine" and start a war that means he has to stay on after his term has expired.... Oh wait! 😂
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
This government is clearly superior to the Tory governments we have had since 2010 except for Cameron.
Do you mean Cameron (Coalition)? All Conservative-only governments since then have been somewhere between very bad (including Cameron 2015) and disastrous.
The Coalition is the only government in my adult lifetime that I would consider to have been basically competent, though there were hints of it in early Blair until he went off the rails.
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
This government is clearly superior to the Tory governments we have had since 2010 except for Cameron.
Do you mean Cameron (Coalition)? All Conservative-only governments since then have been somewhere between very bad (including Cameron 2015) and disastrous.
The Coalition is the only government in my adult lifetime that I would consider to have been basically competent, though there were hints of it in early Blair until he went off the rails.
Excellent profile picture. I’ve just had my season guide through
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
Verian have stepped in and provided us with polling instead.
Likelihood to vote weighted
Refiom 25 (-2) Green 20! (+7) Con 18 (-3) Lab 15 (-3) LD 14 (-1) SNP 2 (-1) Others 7 (+4)
Cracking poll for Greens, dreadful for Labour, poor for Ref and Con compared to December.
In a sign of where recent Ref slippage might be, Con back ahead with over 65s
Lowest VI for Labour with a BPC pollster ever that isnt Find Out Now (FW 20 to 23 March)
The Greens are not going to poll 20%.
Getting closer to topping a BPC poll. A good May could do it for @TSE tip.
YouGov the most likely. Verian note they included Reform and Green on the page one prompts this time (page 2 previously) which makes Reforms decline all the more concerning for them
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
There is nothing wrong with net zero.
There is something wrong with it as a policy target because it creates self-defeating incentives, like most targets.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
There is nothing wrong with net zero.
Indeed! And it WILL happen, eventually.
The tricky part, politically, is putting a legally binding year - by which it must be achieved - irrespective of outside events - on it.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Rebel MPs who want Starmer removed are feeling tactically outmaneuvered.
If they are minded to launch a coup after potential Labour humiliation in 7 May elections, their ability to organise will be hugely constrained — because the Commons will not be sitting till the King reopens parliament on 13 May and announces Starmer’s new legislative programme.
Would any fury and desire for vengeance against the PM be sustained for more than four days, when MPs will be in their constituencies, rather than plotting and winding themselves up in the corridors of Westminster? And would any wannabe prime minister risk looking treacherous, just as Starmer is received the imprimatur of the monarch for putative national renewal?
“I honestly can’t see any route to replacing Keir,” said one MP who would like to see him go. For Rayner, Streeting and Burnham, the game has become a longer one
Interesting.
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
This government is clearly superior to the Tory governments we have had since 2010 except for Cameron.
Clearly superior to Johnson and Truss. After that it gets debatable. I'd say not superior to Cameron pre-EU mishap, or Major before the bastards got to him. Definitely not superior to Blair pre-Iraq, or Maggie pre-Poll Tax.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
I don't think anyone remembers May was ever PM. Not with Boris, Truss, Sunak and Starmer since.
That Fuel Britannia notion nicely skewers both Reeves and Miliband.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
I can't decide which is more odd, your constant Kemi-ramping or HYUFD's Badenoch-bashing. I suspect you egg each other on.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
Some users love to attack our Labour ramper almost every post but at least they’re open in what they think.
Badenoch going hard on North Sea oil. A good idea but yet again going on energy bills when the issue is TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE that can be used to offset energy bills though.
Would that be the North Sea Oil of poor quality that her Government subsidised at huge cost.
The same North Sea Oil that's got to be sold on the global market.
Or is she planning a sneaky straw to suck it ashore in a glorified sucknit yourself scheme.
She has the IQ of a newt
Another load of bollocks from you. North Sea oil from the UK and Norway is some of the highest quality and most valuable in the world. One of the reasons many of us have been saying for many years that it is too good to be burning.
It's quite amusing how PB oil experts crop up to troll you into putting them straight, every so often.
That's actually quite good from CON - Unfortunately Mrs May making Net Zero a legally binding commitment by 2050 is still fresh in everyones memories, however...
There is nothing wrong with net zero.
Indeed! And it WILL happen, eventually.
The tricky part, politically, is putting a legally binding year - by which it must be achieved - irrespective of outside events - on it.
Reform DO think there is something wrong with it. Of course, that’s because their attempts to say climate change wasn’t real have failed so they’ve had to change their message now.
Price Watch: Travelled from south Devon to York, then Leeds then on to Lincs yesterday.
Cheapest diesel was Aldi in Leeds at 165.9p. Most expensive was one of the motorway service stations at 198.9p
Mostly c.175p
Maybe Trump can take out motorway service stations.
Greedy buggers.
I thought that Reeves' response to this economic shock was to talk about Truss (again) and then claim she was going after profit gougers (as if the increase in costs were not real and the problem she should be looking to address)?
She needs to temporarily reduce fuel duty, paid for by the additional VAT, to stop the country grinding to a halt. And if that causes Ed to resign that should be regarded as a bonus by all sane people.
We’ve been repeatedly told by PBers that fuel use is inelastic; so why would cutting fuel duty have an effect on consumption? And what taxes would you raise to make up for it?
The kind of short-sighted policy is why we have an enormous debt and why firms and households haven’t shifted away from fossil fuels, leaving us incredibly vulnerable to this kind of disaster.
If we’re going to cut any taxes it should be VAT on business/industrial electricity. Drop it from 20% to 5%.
It’s inelastic in the short and medium term - that means it is *relatively* slow to change as price changes.
People will drive to work and to the supermarket, even if prices rise. Until they can’t.
Equally, if the fuel price drops, few people will take a trip from John O’Groats to Landsend and back for LOLs.
A few journeys on the margins will or won’t be taken.
The issue for some people is exactly the inelasticity - they can’t just decide not to drive and they can’t afford to switch to an EV yet.
I basically agree with all that but it really needs to be stressed to consumers that this kind of shock is part and parcel of depending on a resource that is entirely at the whim of lunatics like Trump, the IRGC and Putin.
Fuel duty is a fixed duty in pence terms and is now much smaller, as a proportion, of the cost than it was before this crisis. It’s also been cut by some 40% in the last 15 years. We can’t keep coddling our economy every time something goes wrong.
Reward those firms and households that have assessed the risks and protected themselves. Not the freebie junkies.
For a large chunk of the population, driving is as important as the water supply.
I get that they tend to be rural and so, for some, sympathy is hard.
But there’s a reason that fuel prices and recessions correlate.
Again, I don’t disagree. Do a £20 uplift to UC or an increase in the tax allowance if you’re worried about households - don’t direct the cash at richer households that haven’t switched to EVs or those rural households that haven’t moved away from heating oil.
I'm an interested person in the heating oil debate. As I've said, despite living (on the edge) in a small town, we are on oil. Gas didn't make it up our cul de sac. Two years ago we did a big extension and installed a new oil boiler. We did look at air-source/oil combinations but it wasn't that attractive at the time (really expensive up-front costs). The new part of our house is very well insulated, and we fitted new double glazing in the existing house as well as the new parts. We also had new insulation added to the upper story of the old part, but sadly the original house was built in the mid 70's and is poorly insulated for the main. Upstairs the wall were single skin with wood cladding. They now have some extra insulation between the walls and the new cladding. The loft space is well insulated.
So yes, we opted for a new, efficient oil boiler. We will use around 1200 litres of oil a year. Sorry. I was wary of switching because our old house is not well insulated. I suspect that when we do install the next heating system it will be air or ground source and will be combined with solar and battery. But it wasn't right for us yet. We have though done a lot to make our house better.
So I don't quite get why you are so down on rural users who are denied access to the gas network.
You are guilty of not living in an urban flat and cycling everywhere.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Your inability to appreciate incentives in mind boggling. We’re going to make this mistake over and over again because government is just the same.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.
Comments
Don’t think there’s any way back for Don Felder anyway.
‼️#GE2029 Welsh poll | Plaid lead by 5pts
🏴 Plaid: 29% (=)
➡️ Ref: 24% (-1)
🟢 Grn: 14% (+2)
🔴 Lab: 12% (-1)
🔵 Con: 12% (=)
🟠 Lib: 5% (-1)
Labour wipeout, everyone else gets on the board
What an embarrassing spectacle.
I can afford to live in a part of London, where several fair sized supermarkets are 5 minutes walk from me. Where I can walk in less than 10 minutes to several tube/overground station. Where the high road is a wall of buses, driving past shops that haven’t all closed. Where the grid of roads around me is non-stop delivery vehicles.
So not having a car is actually sensible.
Strangely, not everyone has this.
Not a serious party
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش
@citrinowicz
A key question is whether U.S. policymakers are fully accounting for Iran’s own perception of the conflict.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2037140781320810785
===
Erm... I'm gonna go with nope.
Offords Offal are collapsing
@Steven_Swinford
Exclusive from @oliver_wright
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that Britain’s petrol retailers are “profiteering” from the war in the Middle East by price gouging is not supported by evidence, an investigation by The Times suggests
An analysis of fuel price rises at more than 6,000 petrol stations since the conflict in Iran began found that retailers had, on average, increased the cost of petrol by 12.1 per cent. Of those, only nine forecourts increased their petrol prices more than double the national average (24 per cent or more)
The pump price increase is less than the 18 per cent rise in the wholesale price since the US attacks on Iran began.
The findings cast doubt on claims by Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, that petrol retailers have been exploiting the crisis in the Middle East to make additional profits at the expense of customers.
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2037127574812315951
You are all welcome.
Although I suspect Eurogarages are reacting very quickly given the 9p per litre difference between 2 petrol stations that I highlighted over the weekend.
Heads of government aren't discussing or even acknowledging it publicly, for obvious reasons (though the Finnish president for one is coming pretty close).
But this is the sort of thing that's starting to be talked about behind the scenes.
https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/2026-03/boell-paper_the-european-pillar-in-nato.pdf
..Today, the theological debate between Atlanticism and Europeanism is largely obsolete. Even the most ardent proponent of strategic autonomy – France – recognizes the current indispensability of NATO, including the added value of unique elements of NATO such as NATO’s Defence Planning Process (NDPP) and the established command structure, and the necessity to include key European non-EU members like the UK, Norway, and Turkey (French government, 2025, p. 24; Daalder, 2025).
Instead, there are two competing visions for the future of NATO: the European pillar of NATO and the Europeanization of NATO. This is not to ignore the growing importance of informal, ad-hoc institutions in European security such as the E5, minilateral formats such as the Joint Expeditionary Forces, or new bilateral linkages (Kefferpütz and Bruck, 2025). But these formats are usually designed to support, complement, and/or operationalize NATO’s role, not replace it..
https://jaclarner.github.io/senedd_etholiad_sim/
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development says UK economy will grow by just 0.7% this year
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/26/middle-east-conflict-will-damage-uk-economy-more-than-any-other
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew7xrj4497o
I dont think any of the withdrawals are in winnable seats for them (yet). I'm not expecting a big Labour or Tory revival, too far gone for that
BELLA CALEDONIA
@bellacaledonia
·
19m
Even the client journalists are turning against Offord's shambolic campaign
https://x.com/bellacaledonia/status/2037145696080396479?s=20
I notice the Tories ramping up their Reform attacks quite a fair bit, some of those MSPs placed 3rd on their list are fighting hard to make their coat pegs less shoogly
But the forecast does assume it's all over by the summer, without further large scale damage to Gulf energy infrastructure.
..However, the global economy is in peril from the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war, it said, which means there is “a significant downside risk to the outlook [from] persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East that raise energy prices even further than assumed and aggravate shortages of key commodities...
The question is, what is best for the country?
I can't see any alternatives to the dismal Starmer who are any better for the country, and quite a few who would make things substantially worse, so on the whole I'm in favour of keeping him until 2029.
And there's an upside. He is so obviously and dismally incompetent, and the atmosphere of continual plots and coups that never quite come off so unedifying, that his continuing in office seems to damage Labour more and more the longer it goes on.
Of course, if removing him led to an early election, it could benefit the country, as Labour would likely be devastated, but given their huge majority I think we're stuck with them given turkeys and Christmas.
So on the whole I think it's better that Starmer stays, ghastly and incompetent though he is.
Too bad this country is reduced to this, but that's the choice we made in 2024 I'm afraid, or at least 20% of the eligible electorate did.
Mr Offord will attract further scrutiny during the campaign no doubt. You are right, 2nd place seems a fair task for RefUK now given they will be largely targeting list votes
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v1crOWDKhRA
But they will not beat Rayner.
So I don't think @Sandpit's view that petrol will be even cheaper for him will play out..
Because I suspect Farage would be Trump without the competency...
I seem to recall Dominic Raab was reluctant to disturb his holiday to airlift British assets out of Kabul. Still, Carrie Johnson got the dogs out so it wasn't a complete disaster.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Mzy_tErrcEo
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iGZlw7wv2Xo
Likelihood to vote weighted
Refiom 25 (-2)
Green 20! (+7)
Con 18 (-3)
Lab 15 (-3)
LD 14 (-1)
SNP 2 (-1)
Others 7 (+4)
Cracking poll for Greens, dreadful for Labour, poor for Ref and Con compared to December.
In a sign of where recent Ref slippage might be, Con back ahead with over 65s
Hats off to Nick for a highly successful Gotcha and Healey panicked to Muppet status. Another one we can strike off the Starmer replacement list.
Honest Bob on WATO now as Reform Shadow Chancellor. I know he is a repulsive Charlatan but he is very good at broadcast politics.
"Finally we have proof that Britain’s elites have abandoned intelligence
The social group are the least likely sector of society to spend their spare time reading, The Telegraph’s Class Study has discovered"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/britains-elites-have-abandoned-intelligence
I agree with Foxy's "I would have thought that Labour MPs having a long weekend in their constituencied consoling all the Labour councillors that had just lost their seats would have the opposite effect and send them back with a determination for a leadership challenge." But that won't be needed. The certain knowledge that they'll lose their own seats will be more than enough for the bloodbath to kick off on 8th May, they won't need to talk to losing councillors for the penny to drop.
I hope it's bloody, the bloodier the better. Starmer is so unpopular that it'll be a case of "he/she who wields the knife gets the political credit with the public" and both the leading and outsider candidates will be jostling to be seen to be the first to do so. Rayner will act whether or not she thinks it's the optimal moment because she knows that others will do so if she doesn't, and she won't want to be left standing on the starting block.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgk0j71g417o
"UK forecast to see biggest hit to growth from Iran war out of major economies."
(And Reeves' headroom...)
BREAKING: Transgender women athletes banned from female Olympic events
Good politics from Trump?
https://x.com/i/status/2037160209626411229
Does Trump really care about his ratings now, though? He got the second term and so now it's full steam ahead with scorched earth until November 2028?
This is probably reassuring for those who think he might do an "Emperor Palpatine" and start a war that means he has to stay on after his term has expired.... Oh wait! 😂
Coventry's start of tenure at the IOC has started well.
Preferred PM:
Mr Blobby 2,300
Farage 1,400
Rupert Lowe 1,000
Starmer 174
The Coalition is the only government in my adult lifetime that I would consider to have been basically competent, though there were hints of it in early Blair until he went off the rails.
Verian note they included Reform and Green on the page one prompts this time (page 2 previously) which makes Reforms decline all the more concerning for them
The tricky part, politically, is putting a legally binding year - by which it must be achieved - irrespective of outside events - on it.
(The tweet here seems disconnected from the tanker - which only mentions getting rid of fuel tax... what, all of it? - or the clip where she only talks about abolishing a rise. Nothing on NS drilling in the clip)
That Fuel Britannia notion nicely skewers both Reeves and Miliband.
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/2037161669114134824
This what the Financial Times thinks is about to happen to the uniparty in the local elections in May.
I’m entirely aware of the enormous costs associated with living in rural areas, whether that’s heating oil or fuel. That’s the costly environment i grew up in and it’s perverse to describe someone from the north of Scotland otherwise. What I disagree with is providing support only to those who have not invested in alternatives, because it rewards the kind of behaviour that in the long term deeply damages rural communities and the public finances.
Another example: I think the upcoming per mileage charge for EVs is a disgrace because it incentivises short urban journeys over long rural ones. It’s going to kill the rural economy far more than fuel duty dies, because at least long journeys tend to be more fuel efficient, all the while further contesting our cities. Per journey would be far better.