Sad to see Leicester relegated but also what on earth has happened to Chelsea
5 games, 5 loses, no goals scored
Yes, the stadium was half full last night, and I am hoarse this morning from singing "Sack the Board". The first half was appalling but the second half quite entertaining, but far too little too late by our players and missed half a dozen sitters. The story of the season. Poor finishing and shocking defending Begovic gifted Hull their first goal.
The sad thing was that Hull were nothing special and on the brink of the playoffs. It was one of many games we could have won if we weren't a shambles on and off the pitch.
Next season will be dire. Administration may well be possible, and further points deduction. See your* team next year may have the same too.
What a mess. FFP seems to punish only lesser clubs while the Man City's and Chelseas of this world get barely a slap on the wrist.
*sorry, confusing you with BJO 😀
Man U in administration would be 'surprising'!
I suspect whoever out of West Ham or Spurs that gets relegated are going to have a similar set of financial issues
Perhaps the plan for the Spurs owners is to have the football club go bust then get an NFL franchise in their lovely stadium. Would probably make them more money and no risk of relegation.
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
Many of the cabinet will probably be out of a job if Starmer is replaced so it’s in their interests to keep him in post .
They will all be out of any job in three years time if they don't get rid of him pronto.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
There are certainly some perfectly able candidates to take over from the PM that don’t include Burnham who is high on his own sense of “ my farts don’t smell and I can walk on water “ !
Indeed what I’ve seen over the last 10 years suggests this PM gig isn’t that hard if you have some common sense, good judgement, and don’t have the personality of a wooden plank !
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
It is the principle rather than the man that concerns me.
Starmer may be in a bit of a hole but comparatively Eden was down a deep mine shaft of his own making.
(*Actually it's a drama-documentary with talking heads, which does make one hark back for the days of proper documentaries tbf.)
Yep, wasn't keen on the style of it but even knowing some of the basic facts, the confirmation of the absolute shittiness of most of the players in this shameful episode was eye opening.
Oh for the days of a POTUS attached to the idea of morality.
Is the notion that SKS would perhaps rather bring the whole edifice down and declare a GE rather than face the indiginity of being deposed an underpriced scenario? That's what Sunak did.
Zero chance. He’ll quit before he does that.
As I have said repeatedly, I don’t think we will ever get to the point of a challenge. He’ll quit way before that.
I think that the most likely way for Starmer to go is voluntarily. In part because it avoids an ignominious defenestration. Difficult that maybe, but also humiliating. There is a modest amount of dignity in going voluntarily, and also slightly more influence on the successor. I suspect that he favours Streeting out of the possibles.
I don't think Starmer was planning to go just yet, but increasingly he looks like a lame duck. After the meltdown in May would be the best, and a new PM by conference.
Why would it help to have a new PM just as we are about to face the reality of higher inflation from Iran (beyond just fuel)? They will get Trussed.
Starmer leaving in 2027 is better for him and his replacement.
Every day that Starmer stays on is another day of damage to Labour, another day of hardening voters' negative attitudes towards Labour, one day less for a new leader to implement reforms to turn the country around.
You think a new leader has reforms that will turn the country around? Bless.
We are constrained by the wars in Ukraine and Iran, and longer term our demographics. No leader of any party is going to fix this for us.
If that's your prognosis then it hardly matters who leads Labour, or when. The party is going down to defeat at the next election regardless.
Not quite. Probably they are going to lose, for sure. I would argue:
2026 is known to be bad (but not yet fully factored in by the general public), whereas by 2027-8 Ukraine and Iran may or may not be settled. So some chance of the better situation. There should be a shortish honeymoon period of relief its not Starmer whoever takes over The longer a leader is in power before an election the harder it will be to avoid blame for economic reality beyond their control Making two leadership changes in the parliament is too many, re-enforces public perception of incompetence, and at the MP level leads to factions in constant tension
Combined I think that makes 2027 significantly better for Labour prospects than 2026, where I suspect they may end up needing two changes over the term with the 2026 PM Trussed.
I think the weakness of this picture is that it's largely based on factors that are external and hard to predict, and so trying to optimise the timing of a leadership change relative to external factors is really hard.
I would advocate concentrating on those factors that are under the control of a PM - providing a sense of direction and purpose to the government and making incremental improvements. A lot of the things that might improve Britain's situation fall into the category of policies that are initially unpopular and take time to produce results, so they really need to be done as soon as possible.
That all days, I do agree that two changes of PM in a Parliament would be rightly seen by the voters as chaotic. And you could similarly argue that changing PM so soon after a landslide election victory would dent Labour's credibility. But Starmer is so very unpopular.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Social media companies are having a nightmare trying to deal with AI characters like this, as they’re trying to drive engagement with real people.
Youtube don’t care much as long as it gets views though, and it’s now possible to run dozens of creative channels from one computer, making hundreds of dollars per day in revenue - which if you’re in India or Africa is a decent living. But most of it is utter slop that people are clicking by accident, and it’s driving people off their platform.
That all said, “Amelia” from a couple of months ago was rather amusing.
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
It is the principle rather than the man that concerns me.
It is politics, and Robbins a willing participant. If he didn't want to act as the potential scapegoat with the backup of a big payout and city job, he could have, perhaps, you know, actually glanced at the vetting report he overruled.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Is the notion that SKS would perhaps rather bring the whole edifice down and declare a GE rather than face the indiginity of being deposed an underpriced scenario? That's what Sunak did.
Wishful thinking. Although Farage has friends who could help us out in Donald Trump and Putin's post apocalyptic World.
Ok topic I'm trying to think of a PM who quit rather than basically being forced out and I'm drawing a blank. I mean Blair I guess kind of, and he drew that one out for a good 4 years...
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
Ok topic I'm trying to think of a PM who quit rather than basically being forced out and I'm drawing a blank. I mean Blair I guess kind of, and he drew that one out for a good 4 years...
Blair’s the only one in my lifetime (back to Callaghan). The rest all either lost their own MPs, or lost an election.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
Starmer tried and all the MPs said no. I still think this was a massive strategic error. He should have made it a confidence issue.
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
It is the principle rather than the man that concerns me.
It is politics, and Robbins a willing participant. If he didn't want to act as the potential scapegoat with the backup of a big payout and city job, he could have, perhaps, you know, actually glanced at the vetting report he overruled.
You are not seeing the wood from the trees.
This is Johnsonian smoke and mirrors. Starmer was supposed to be a straight up guy. The Robbins sacking to deflect from a roll of the dice that went wrong is not being a straight up guy.
When I am chosen to replace Keir Starmer, my first action will be to mandate weekly bin collections, one bin per household, to be sorted at the recycling plant. Requiring people to use 57 varieties of bin collected every other Tuesday smacks of inept council planning and perhaps a hint of quasi-religious fervour – people must be made to work for recycling because it is good for their souls.
Ok topic I'm trying to think of a PM who quit rather than basically being forced out and I'm drawing a blank. I mean Blair I guess kind of, and he drew that one out for a good 4 years...
And there was a co-ordinated push for Blair to go at the end. He pre-announced his departure date because the Brownites basically forced his hand.
Didn’t Wilson quit without anyone really being aware beforehand? (Though there was a lot of controversy around that)
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Starmer knows he is taking the Labour cause backwards. He would stand down if he felt there was somebody in his team who could do a better job.
But he looks around and his inflated self-worth says "Nah. Nobody will do better."
What is this 'Labour cause' of which you speak, Mark?
As far as I can see there is no cause as such, just an attempt to run the shop reasonably sensibly. That isn't setting the bar very high, although some way higher than some of the governments of the past ten or so years.
Unfortunately I can't see that Nobody would indeed do better. If Labour had a Nobody who might, the Party would surely be lining him up right now. They haven't, and they aren't.
What on earth is sensible about spending more and more money on welfare we cannot afford, electricity prices around the highest in Europe and failing to increase defence spending? I could go on....
Please do. And then advise which bits of legislation you would revoke/change and how would that work with the groupings in Parliament both now and expected.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Not true. Some are breaking cover. sir Desmond Swayne being the most recent.
When I am chosen to replace Keir Starmer, my first action will be to mandate weekly bin collections, one bin per household, to be sorted at the recycling plant. Requiring people to use 57 varieties of bin collected every other Tuesday smacks of inept council planning and perhaps a hint of quasi-religious fervour – people must be made to work for recycling because it is good for their souls.
Hmmm. Is your second action to mandate 99 flakes to cost 99p? Are you perhaps Count Binface? Apologies for the doxxing.
There are certainly some perfectly able candidates to take over from the PM that don’t include Burnham who is high on his own sense of “ my farts don’t smell and I can walk on water “ !
Indeed what I’ve seen over the last 10 years suggests this PM gig isn’t that hard if you have some common sense, good judgement, and don’t have the personality of a wooden plank !
Which Prime Minister in the last 10 years do you claim had common sense and good judgement?
It does feel like the Robbins sacking is going to be an "act in haste, repent at leisure" scenario.
It was so unnecessary.
Starmer could have simply called him into his office and said 'What's all this I hear about a Vetting problem?' A calm but honest discussion might have followed, quite possibly ending with the Permanent Secretary leaving with a flea in his ear. No drama, no sackings, just a reassertion of Prime Ministerial authority and a lesson for a PS who stepped ever so slightly out of line.
Few care what goes on inside Whitehall but No 10 managed to turn a mistake into something approaching a public scandal.
There are certainly some perfectly able candidates to take over from the PM that don’t include Burnham who is high on his own sense of “ my farts don’t smell and I can walk on water “ !
Indeed what I’ve seen over the last 10 years suggests this PM gig isn’t that hard if you have some common sense, good judgement, and don’t have the personality of a wooden plank !
Which Prime Minister in the last 10 years do you claim had common sense and good judgement?
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
It is the principle rather than the man that concerns me.
It is politics, and Robbins a willing participant. If he didn't want to act as the potential scapegoat with the backup of a big payout and city job, he could have, perhaps, you know, actually glanced at the vetting report he overruled.
You are not seeing the wood from the trees.
This is Johnsonian smoke and mirrors. Starmer was supposed to be a straight up guy. The Robbins sacking to deflect from a roll of the dice that went wrong is not being a straight up guy.
I accept that Starmer is not and can't portray himself as a straight up guy, but I never particularly thought him such. Not sure I'd ever think of any candidate for PM as such, because you don't get into those positions without ambition overruling ethics from time to time.
Friendship with Emily Thornberry ended. She supports Robbins losing his job and still supports Sir Keir.
Perhaps May elections will change things but I’m still not getting much of a sense of wanting Starmer out just yet.
I suspect behind closed doors the frustration is enormous. I have had this quaint notion since July 2024 that Starmer probably had the capacity to turn this around. But he hasn't got that capacity. This has become clearer over the last few weeks.
Okay Pb, here’s my understanding of where things are from the Labour perspective.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
So your prediction is that Starmer will quit before the locals, or will quit after the locals, or he won't quit. I guess that just about covers it. ETA to be fair you did rule out before the locals.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This quote seems to provide the first concrete evidence for an assertion often made, but rarely proven.
He said he also attempted to make a liberal counterpart for Hart on Instagram, but “Democrats know that it’s AI slop, so they don’t engage as much,” he said.
“The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people. And they fall for it,” Sam said.
It does feel like the Robbins sacking is going to be an "act in haste, repent at leisure" scenario.
It was so unnecessary.
Starmer could have simply called him into his office and said 'What's all this I hear about a Vetting problem?' A calm but honest discussion might have followed, quite possibly ending with the Permanent Secretary leaving with a flea in his ear. No drama, no sackings, just a reassertion of Prime Ministerial authority and a lesson for a PS who stepped ever so slightly out of line.
Few care what goes on inside Whitehall but No 10 managed to turn a mistake into something approaching a public scandal.
He's really not very good at politics, is he.
Sorry, when do you think this meeting should have taken place?
Sacking Olly Robbins stands in the face of all things to do with fair play Labour are supposed to stand for. It reeks of unfairness and every Minister sent out to defend the decision is another good man pushed under a bus to protect the PM, The latest is Pat Mcfadden. It's horrible to watch.
We expect it of the Tories but Labour should be better than this.
The Robbins firing was the point of no return for Starmer as far as I am concerned. Scratching around for a scapegoat, particularly when the wrong one is selected, is the mark of a scoundrel. This is Johnsonian level buck passing.
Robbins is hardly being hard done by. Probably half a million quid for not working for a few months, then back to MD level role within Goldmans before returning to run the government for whoever is the 2028 GE winner.
It is the principle rather than the man that concerns me.
It is politics, and Robbins a willing participant. If he didn't want to act as the potential scapegoat with the backup of a big payout and city job, he could have, perhaps, you know, actually glanced at the vetting report he overruled.
You are not seeing the wood from the trees.
This is Johnsonian smoke and mirrors. Starmer was supposed to be a straight up guy. The Robbins sacking to deflect from a roll of the dice that went wrong is not being a straight up guy.
I accept that Starmer is not and can't portray himself as a straight up guy, but I never particularly thought him such. Not sure I'd ever think of any candidate for PM as such, because you don't get into those positions without ambition overruling ethics from time to time.
The Robbins sacking demonstrates a clear incompetence. The Mandelson call was simply a misjudgement, albeit a misjudgement made when lots of facts were available. Having made the bad call I would have taken the high road, but Robbins is quite something else.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Not true. Some are breaking cover. sir Desmond Swayne being the most recent.
There’s more chance of me putting on a MAGA hat than the Tories ditching the Triple Lock !
The over 67s ( barring some learned members in here! )have turned into hostage takers where refusal to go along with their demands is met first by a severed finger and then with a bullet to the electoral prospects of any party who dares cross them.
Tube strikes a bit of a damp squib tbh. If this is all the unions can muster then TfL should laugh in their faces and dare them to keep striking until their money runs out. Freeze pay and open up driver recruitment with 3,000 new positions.
Ok topic I'm trying to think of a PM who quit rather than basically being forced out and I'm drawing a blank. I mean Blair I guess kind of, and he drew that one out for a good 4 years...
Is the notion that SKS would perhaps rather bring the whole edifice down and declare a GE rather than face the indiginity of being deposed an underpriced scenario? That's what Sunak did.
Wishful thinking. Although Farage has friends who could help us out in Donald Trump and Putin's post apocalyptic World.
It seems even Mr Toad is beginning to worry about Twitter being dominated by nazis:
Is the notion that SKS would perhaps rather bring the whole edifice down and declare a GE rather than face the indiginity of being deposed an underpriced scenario? That's what Sunak did.
There’s a world of difference between holding an election six months before one is due and three years before one is due.
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Not true. Some are breaking cover. sir Desmond Swayne being the most recent.
There’s more chance of me putting on a MAGA hat than the Tories ditching the Triple Lock !
The over 67s ( barring some learned members in here! )have turned into hostage takers where refusal to go along with their demands is met first by a severed finger and then with a bullet to the electoral prospects of any party who dares cross them.
That may be the case but some backbenchers are now breaking cover.
I’m 60, I’ll get mine in six and a half years. I’d rather see it reformed than continue as is.
Starmer knows he is taking the Labour cause backwards. He would stand down if he felt there was somebody in his team who could do a better job.
But he looks around and his inflated self-worth says "Nah. Nobody will do better."
What is this 'Labour cause' of which you speak, Mark?
As far as I can see there is no cause as such, just an attempt to run the shop reasonably sensibly. That isn't setting the bar very high, although some way higher than some of the governments of the past ten or so years.
Unfortunately I can't see that Nobody would indeed do better. If Labour had a Nobody who might, the Party would surely be lining him up right now. They haven't, and they aren't.
The problem with just "running the shop sensibly" is that a PM needs to be a strategist, not just a good administrator. As in, they need to decide the strategy for the country and not just the party. Otherwise the other players who do have a strategy - whether they are lobbyists for the private sector, or leaders of other countries - will get what they want at our expense.
It does seem like the talent bench is extraordinarily thin, but that may be an artifact of the media environment. Currently politicians have a choice of making completely anodyne comments, or blaming the fashionable scapegoats of the moment. Any sensible, considered reasoning is attacked mercilessly. Which makes it hard to detect any degree of competence or mental capacity. In effect, all politicians have to pretend to be idiots, so we can't tell which of them are not idiots.
Starmer will likely step down before the next general election. I think he will survive May though unless Labour are either beaten by the Tories on seats won and NEV or the Greens beat Labour on seats won in London, both of which would be terminal for him as Labour would not only be behind Reform but not even polling as their main opposition
As I noted yesterday, Starmer resigns in May, Burnham is an impotent spectator in the leadership election.
Brucie Bonus for SKS.
The thing that makes me sceptical about this is, I don’t think Sir Keir is actually against having Burnham be PM. I think he’d want the candidate with the best chance of winning again and that’s clearly Burnham at the moment.
It does feel like the Robbins sacking is going to be an "act in haste, repent at leisure" scenario.
It was so unnecessary.
Starmer could have simply called him into his office and said 'What's all this I hear about a Vetting problem?' A calm but honest discussion might have followed, quite possibly ending with the Permanent Secretary leaving with a flea in his ear. No drama, no sackings, just a reassertion of Prime Ministerial authority and a lesson for a PS who stepped ever so slightly out of line.
Few care what goes on inside Whitehall but No 10 managed to turn a mistake into something approaching a public scandal.
He's really not very good at politics, is he.
Nor people/organisation management, it seems. Which is particularly damaging given that this was supposed to be one of his strengths - experience running the CPS etc.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Not true. Some are breaking cover. sir Desmond Swayne being the most recent.
There’s more chance of me putting on a MAGA hat than the Tories ditching the Triple Lock !
The over 67s ( barring some learned members in here! )have turned into hostage takers where refusal to go along with their demands is met first by a severed finger and then with a bullet to the electoral prospects of any party who dares cross them.
That may be the case but some backbenchers are now breaking cover.
I’m 60, I’ll get mine in six and a half years. I’d rather see it reformed than continue as is.
It’s a shame more people didn’t have your attitude . I fear most of the electorate are just not realising how screwed the UKs finances are and seem to think there’s a magic money tree and more are to be planted.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
Yes, that's another candidate. Or charging national insurance on all income. Or property taxation. Or further increases to the pension age. Or probably more options.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
Not true. Some are breaking cover. sir Desmond Swayne being the most recent.
There’s more chance of me putting on a MAGA hat than the Tories ditching the Triple Lock !
The over 67s ( barring some learned members in here! )have turned into hostage takers where refusal to go along with their demands is met first by a severed finger and then with a bullet to the electoral prospects of any party who dares cross them.
That may be the case but some backbenchers are now breaking cover.
I’m 60, I’ll get mine in six and a half years. I’d rather see it reformed than continue as is.
It’s a shame more people didn’t have your attitude . I fear most of the electorate are just not realising how screwed the UKs finances are and seem to think there’s a magic money tree and more are to be planted.
People will either come round to the realisation by some early sobering shocks or they will be forced into the realisation by a serious fiscal crisis.
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
If you find that article genuinely interesting I’m pleased for you.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
As I noted yesterday, Starmer resigns in May, Burnham is an impotent spectator in the leadership election.
Brucie Bonus for SKS.
The thing that makes me sceptical about this is, I don’t think Sir Keir is actually against having Burnham be PM. I think he’d want the candidate with the best chance of winning again and that’s clearly Burnham at the moment.
That makes sense - but only when SKS has decided in his own mind to resign.
If he knows he’s going, he’ll want his successor to be capable of winning an election, but until he’s make that call he will see Burnham as a rival to be shut down.
So if a random MP in Manchester suddenly resigns to take up a charity job somewhere, it’ll be a sign that Starmer has decided to go.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This quote seems to provide the first concrete evidence for an assertion often made, but rarely proven.
He said he also attempted to make a liberal counterpart for Hart on Instagram, but “Democrats know that it’s AI slop, so they don’t engage as much,” he said.
“The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people. And they fall for it,” Sam said.
That's the point (also made in the earlier NYT article). AI slop targeting MAGA and other conservatives is partly about political manipulation but is often just about making money.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This quote seems to provide the first concrete evidence for an assertion often made, but rarely proven.
He said he also attempted to make a liberal counterpart for Hart on Instagram, but “Democrats know that it’s AI slop, so they don’t engage as much,” he said.
“The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people. And they fall for it,” Sam said.
That's the point (also made in the earlier NYT article). AI slop targeting MAGA and other conservatives is partly about political manipulation but is often just about making money.
It’s about making money but it also allows conservatives to reassure themselves that their viewpoints are mainstream - which results in many of them ending up extreme without realizing it
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
If you find that article genuinely interesting I’m pleased for you.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
Trouble is, this is the sort of story used for trainees to cut their teeth. If you get rid of the bottom rung on the ladder, one day there will be no-one to take over at the top.
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
If you find that article genuinely interesting I’m pleased for you.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
Trouble is, this is the sort of story used for trainees to cut their teeth. If you get rid of the bottom rung on the ladder, one day there will be no-one to take over at the top.
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
If you find that article genuinely interesting I’m pleased for you.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
I’m at a loss as to why you think this stuff will disappear if the BBC had less money - outside a few national papers this is the sort of thing that makes local news as it’s just stuff sourced from social media and quickly regurgitated.
No actual journalism required just 10 minutes to write 200 quick words
Then on to the next social media story to make the 2000 words, 10 articles and 50,000 page views that is that days target to avoid redundancy in the next round of cuts
When I am chosen to replace Keir Starmer, my first action will be to mandate weekly bin collections, one bin per household, to be sorted at the recycling plant. Requiring people to use 57 varieties of bin collected every other Tuesday smacks of inept council planning and perhaps a hint of quasi-religious fervour – people must be made to work for recycling because it is good for their souls.
When I first stood for election, a local by-election some time back in the Pleistocene, my key campaign issue was introducing door-to-door recycling, then largely unheard of, but introduced by LibDem Sutton council.
It’s difficult to combine domestic waste (used nappies, used cat litter, used condoms and all) with products to be recycled. Where I am, we have weekly collection of all recycled materials together in one bin, except kitchen waste is in a separate caddy. Then non-recycled material is collected every other week. That’s not too complicated. Most places do all recycling together now, don’t they?
Why quite so dismissive of the BBC's local reporting ? It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
If you find that article genuinely interesting I’m pleased for you.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
Isn’t the BBC required to do this sort of reporting?
When I am chosen to replace Keir Starmer, my first action will be to mandate weekly bin collections, one bin per household, to be sorted at the recycling plant. Requiring people to use 57 varieties of bin collected every other Tuesday smacks of inept council planning and perhaps a hint of quasi-religious fervour – people must be made to work for recycling because it is good for their souls.
When I first stood for election, a local by-election some time back in the Pleistocene, my key campaign issue was introducing door-to-door recycling, then largely unheard of, but introduced by LibDem Sutton council.
It’s difficult to combine domestic waste (used nappies, used cat litter, used condoms and all) with products to be recycled. Where I am, we have weekly collection of all recycled materials together in one bin, except kitchen waste is in a separate caddy. Then non-recycled material is collected every other week. That’s not too complicated. Most places do all recycling together now, don’t they?
Here weeks one and three are general waste, two is card and paper (in one bin), four is plastic/metal/glass (in one bin). Garden waste is a separate service that's collected on weeks two and four... but only if you subscribe.
It's also very hard to get an extra general waste bin but it's very easy to get additional recycling bins.
Okay Pb, here’s my understanding of where things are from the Labour perspective.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
Scenario:
Starmer announces he is stepping down once the party can appoint a successor The party say they will take a few months A by-election is announced as someone steps into the Lords for Andy Writ is moved at maximum speed Burnham is elected as Member for Up North Nominations open for leader
I didn't vote for him, but when Starmer got in he definitely had a "decent bloke" air about him. A touch boring, but plodding and (seemingly) with a methodical plan of dull incremental improvement (Hah !).
Now after being in the post just under 2 years he seems petty, spiteful (See this and blocking Burnham) and desperate to stay in the job not because he's particularly good at it, or for the country heck even for the Labour party but because he is there and enjoys the power the office of PM beholds.
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
As I understand it a winnable seat has been offered for after the locals.
Okay Pb, here’s my understanding of where things are from the Labour perspective.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
Scenario:
Starmer announces he is stepping down once the party can appoint a successor The party say they will take a few months A by-election is announced as someone steps into the Lords for Andy Writ is moved at maximum speed Burnham is elected as Member for Up North Nominations open for leader
I didn't vote for him, but when Starmer got in he definitely had a "decent bloke" air about him. A touch boring, but plodding and (seemingly) with a methodical plan of dull incremental improvement (Hah !).
Now after being in the post just under 2 years he seems petty, spiteful (See this and blocking Burnham) and desperate to stay in the job not because he's particularly good at it, or for the country heck even for the Labour party but because he is there and enjoys the power the office of PM beholds.
Twitter vibe is that Starmer is sticking because when he goes he'll be fair game with the red tops over various 'stories'. Obviously vibes are vibes, but hard to see what enjoyment he is getting out of it currently. Even the power of the office seems somewhat impotent.
Okay Pb, here’s my understanding of where things are from the Labour perspective.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
Scenario:
Starmer announces he is stepping down once the party can appoint a successor The party say they will take a few months A by-election is announced as someone steps into the Lords for Andy Writ is moved at maximum speed Burnham is elected as Member for Up North Nominations open for leader
I vote for someone other than Burnham.
We assume there will be somebody else. Don’t rule out a coronation.
For Burnham, he’d be extremely wisely to keep Mahmood in place and much of her policy platform.
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
As I understand it a winnable seat has been offered for after the locals.
Is there any winnable seat is the question - there should be but is there ?
Re locals. Driving around the last two days, I've seen only two posters (and one of those might have been an HQ). Nor have I had any leaflets (although Labour and the Indys each sent one just before the campaign started). It all seems very quiet this year.
Oh, the neighbours had their postal vote gubbins delivered yesterday.
Maybe campaigning has moved almost entirely online.
I've posted the glass collection dates on the village whatsapp chat (As a reminder to myself more than anything, it's once every 6 weeks). Can I get an article ?
I didn't vote for him, but when Starmer got in he definitely had a "decent bloke" air about him. A touch boring, but plodding and (seemingly) with a methodical plan of dull incremental improvement (Hah !).
Now after being in the post just under 2 years he seems petty, spiteful (See this and blocking Burnham) and desperate to stay in the job not because he's particularly good at it, or for the country heck even for the Labour party but because he is there and enjoys the power the office of PM beholds.
Twitter vibe is that Starmer is sticking because when he goes he'll be fair game with the red tops over various 'stories'. Obviously vibes are vibes, but hard to see what enjoyment he is getting out of it currently. Even the power of the office seems somewhat impotent.
Tube strikes a bit of a damp squib tbh. If this is all the unions can muster then TfL should laugh in their faces and dare them to keep striking until their money runs out. Freeze pay and open up driver recruitment with 3,000 new positions.
Not really, all tube lines suspended or severe delays, only Elizabeth line running a good service.
I didn't vote for him, but when Starmer got in he definitely had a "decent bloke" air about him. A touch boring, but plodding and (seemingly) with a methodical plan of dull incremental improvement (Hah !).
Now after being in the post just under 2 years he seems petty, spiteful (See this and blocking Burnham) and desperate to stay in the job not because he's particularly good at it, or for the country heck even for the Labour party but because he is there and enjoys the power the office of PM beholds.
He could stay PM until 2028/29 and just let a new Labour leader take over for the next general election campaign
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
None of them . Unless there’s cross party agreement to do so then the Triple Lock is going to remain for the foreseeable future .
You can't even get parties to commit to means test the Triple Lock yet let alone abolish it
Ok topic I'm trying to think of a PM who quit rather than basically being forced out and I'm drawing a blank. I mean Blair I guess kind of, and he drew that one out for a good 4 years...
The distinction between "forced out" and "going of own accord" is fundamentally one of timing.
Harold Wilson as far as I know wasn't under external pressure to quit, but he was ill.
Starmer knows he is taking the Labour cause backwards. He would stand down if he felt there was somebody in his team who could do a better job.
But he looks around and his inflated self-worth says "Nah. Nobody will do better."
Part of the problem is that, in U.K. politics, anyone of talent is seen as a rival. And must be destroyed.
Thatcher didn’t do this. She had outspoken opponents in the cabinet all the way through. And was brought down by them, in the end.
Think it began under Blair - his pushing out the hard left gradually morphed. The. We had Brown. Then the Brexit purges.
Prominent ministers under Blair include Brown, Cook, Straw, Mowlam, Prescott, Darling, Blunkett, Milburn, Beckett, Reid, Mandelson, most of whom served significant time periods. It didn't start under Blair.
Brown was already using McBride to attack potential rivals.
Yes, such things had happened previously - but it was an escalation.
The Clintons did the same in the US. That’s how we ended up with Harris as the best option last time
And I have concluded that is why MPs have not moved.
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Labour have to be careful about this though. If they are seen to be fixating on internal party machinations to get Burnham into parliament at all costs purely on the basis of replacing Starmer in some weird deal, it could come back to bite them.
And I have concluded that is why MPs have not moved.
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Labour have to be careful about this though. If they are seen to be fixating on internal party machinations to get Burnham into parliament at all costs purely on the basis of replacing Starmer in some weird deal, it could come back to bite them.
And I have concluded that is why MPs have not moved.
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Labour have to be careful about this though. If they are seen to be fixating on internal party machinations to get Burnham into parliament at all costs purely on the basis of replacing Starmer in some weird deal, it could come back to bite them.
Okay Pb, here’s my understanding of where things are from the Labour perspective.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
Scenario:
Starmer announces he is stepping down once the party can appoint a successor The party say they will take a few months A by-election is announced as someone steps into the Lords for Andy Writ is moved at maximum speed Burnham is elected as Member for Up North Nominations open for leader
I vote for someone other than Burnham.
We assume there will be somebody else. Don’t rule out a coronation.
For Burnham, he’d be extremely wisely to keep Mahmood in place and much of her policy platform.
Voluntary repatriation? That gets kept? How did Labour get into a position where a Powellite policy derided as racist in the 1970s is now seen as a moderate left-wing position?
Comments
Sooner rather than later please.
Indeed what I’ve seen over the last 10 years suggests this PM gig isn’t that hard if you have some common sense, good judgement, and don’t have the personality of a wooden plank !
Oh for the days of a POTUS attached to the idea of morality.
As I have said repeatedly, I don’t think we will ever get to the point of a challenge. He’ll quit way before that.
I would advocate concentrating on those factors that are under the control of a PM - providing a sense of direction and purpose to the government and making incremental improvements. A lot of the things that might improve Britain's situation fall into the category of policies that are initially unpopular and take time to produce results, so they really need to be done as soon as possible.
That all days, I do agree that two changes of PM in a Parliament would be rightly seen by the voters as chaotic. And you could similarly argue that changing PM so soon after a landslide election victory would dent Labour's credibility. But Starmer is so very unpopular.
Youtube don’t care much as long as it gets views though, and it’s now possible to run dozens of creative channels from one computer, making hundreds of dollars per day in revenue - which if you’re in India or Africa is a decent living. But most of it is utter slop that people are clicking by accident, and it’s driving people off their platform.
That all said, “Amelia” from a couple of months ago was rather amusing.
Why? The World Cup.
"* It doesn't necessarily have to be welfare cuts specifically, but there are definitely unpopular things that need to be done to square the circle of the nation's finances. "
Like abolishing the Triple Lock? Now which Party is going to have the cojones to suggest that? Which backbenchers even?
I find very little to disagree with. What a bloody travesty.
This is Johnsonian smoke and mirrors. Starmer was supposed to be a straight up guy. The Robbins sacking to deflect from a roll of the dice that went wrong is not being a straight up guy.
Didn’t Wilson quit without anyone really being aware beforehand? (Though there was a lot of controversy around that)
Starmer could have simply called him into his office and said 'What's all this I hear about a Vetting problem?' A calm but honest discussion might have followed, quite possibly ending with the Permanent Secretary leaving with a flea in his ear. No drama, no sackings, just a reassertion of Prime Ministerial authority and a lesson for a PS who stepped ever so slightly out of line.
Few care what goes on inside Whitehall but No 10 managed to turn a mistake into something approaching a public scandal.
He's really not very good at politics, is he.
Sir Keir is not quitting before the May elections.
He will either quit straight after the May elections, or assuming there’s not some black swan event, he’ll go on for the rest of 2026.
I believe there’s another opportunity to get Burnham into Parliament this year - and I suspect this won’t be blocked.
“The MAGA crowd is made up of dumb people—like, super dumb people. And they fall for it,” Sam said.
The over 67s ( barring some learned members in here! )have turned into hostage takers where refusal to go along with their demands is met first by a severed finger and then with a bullet to the electoral prospects of any party who dares cross them.
He might quit straight after the locals. 30-40% confidence.
He will see out 2026. 50-60% confidence.
He quits in 2027. 80-90% confidence.
Brucie Bonus for SKS.
https://bsky.app/profile/dailyherald.bsky.social/post/3mjymykwb3c2e
It's the sort of thing you would once have found in the local paper, which doesn't exist anymore.
They have genuinely interesting local news along with the mundane.
I’m 60, I’ll get mine in six and a half years. I’d rather see it reformed than continue as is.
https://x.com/mattletiss7/status/2046726814328897847?s=61
It does seem like the talent bench is extraordinarily thin, but that may be an artifact of the media environment. Currently politicians have a choice of making completely anodyne comments, or blaming the fashionable scapegoats of the moment. Any sensible, considered reasoning is attacked mercilessly. Which makes it hard to detect any degree of competence or mental capacity. In effect, all politicians have to pretend to be idiots, so we can't tell which of them are not idiots.
Or several of those options.
I hope it's the former rather than the latter.
I’m dismissive of it because it’s crap, mundane irrelevant crap. Cheap page filler rubbish, and there’s a good reason why local papers no longer carry it. People aren’t sufficiently interested.
a woman sends a letter to neighbours about bins, big deal, along with sad face picture of her holding two bins up.
A waste of the license fee and hopefully with the Impending decimation of staff at the BBC this drivel will become more prominent and hopefully speed up the de use of the license fee.
If he knows he’s going, he’ll want his successor to be capable of winning an election, but until he’s make that call he will see Burnham as a rival to be shut down.
So if a random MP in Manchester suddenly resigns to take up a charity job somewhere, it’ll be a sign that Starmer has decided to go.
No actual journalism required just 10 minutes to write 200 quick words
Then on to the next social media story to make the 2000 words, 10 articles and 50,000 page views that is that days target to avoid redundancy in the next round of cuts
It’s difficult to combine domestic waste (used nappies, used cat litter, used condoms and all) with products to be recycled. Where I am, we have weekly collection of all recycled materials together in one bin, except kitchen waste is in a separate caddy. Then non-recycled material is collected every other week. That’s not too complicated. Most places do all recycling together now, don’t they?
It's also very hard to get an extra general waste bin but it's very easy to get additional recycling bins.
Starmer announces he is stepping down once the party can appoint a successor
The party say they will take a few months
A by-election is announced as someone steps into the Lords for Andy
Writ is moved at maximum speed
Burnham is elected as Member for Up North
Nominations open for leader
Now after being in the post just under 2 years he seems petty, spiteful (See this and blocking Burnham) and desperate to stay in the job not because he's particularly good at it, or for the country heck even for the Labour party but because he is there and enjoys the power the office of PM beholds.
For Burnham, he’d be extremely wisely to keep Mahmood in place and much of her policy platform.
He could fall on his sword, metaphorically.
Will he do so, is a very different question.
Oh, the neighbours had their postal vote gubbins delivered yesterday.
Maybe campaigning has moved almost entirely online.
Though yes driver recruitment can be expanded
https://bsky.app/profile/brianbilston.bsky.social/post/3mk32ydy7ds2g
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Harold Wilson as far as I know wasn't under external pressure to quit, but he was ill.
Vote shares were
Lab 26
Grn 22
Con 17
LD 15
Ref 14
It's over.
The whole thing could become another media circus in which he stands and then loses .