Ah, competitive gerrymandering, that's how things should go
Virginia voters have approved a redistricting measure that could help Democrats in their bid to win control of the thinly divided US House of Representatives in the midterm elections later this year.
Ah, competitive gerrymandering, that's how things should go
Virginia voters have approved a redistricting measure that could help Democrats in their bid to win control of the thinly divided US House of Representatives in the midterm elections later this year.
Ah, competitive gerrymandering, that's how things should go
Virginia voters have approved a redistricting measure that could help Democrats in their bid to win control of the thinly divided US House of Representatives in the midterm elections later this year.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
For me its Starmer and Sunak who are similar. Both think themselves a bit above the communication, representation and media bits of the job.
Boris for all his faults was very happy to be the front man.
I am not sure its they think themselves above it, they are just very poor at it. And if you know you are really poor at something and your advisor keep saying but PM you must do another interview or photoshoot or PR stunt, it probably fills you full of dreed, when you would much prefer to be sitting in our office reading about the finer points of some very dull economic forecast or legalise. But the modern age pretty much requires you to do act like the front man of a rock band.
I used to do everything possible to get out of art classes because it was always fucking drawing fruit or some such shit and not only did I not enjoy it I was fucking useless at it.
Very plausible. I think stuff like Rishi leaving remembrance celebrations early was kind of him thinking, I've got lots to do, I'm just hanging around here, maybe I can be off...
You're right that this stuff is the job. If you want to be the economics expert go get a job in academia or at the Treasury.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 2h CHART OF THE DAY: The size of the 🇨🇳 Chinese strategic petroleum reserve is mind blowing: larger than 🇺🇸 US + 🇯🇵 Japan + the whole of 🇪🇺 Western Europe combined.
Impressive but how quickly will they burn through it if Homuz remains shut? I suspect very quickly because they don't have anything like the domestic supply that the USA/Canada/Venezuela does.
"The Japanese would still have invaded Midway, and other US possessions, . . . "
For example, a few little islands like Guam, Luzon, and Mindanao.
The Japanese attack on the Philippines began just hours after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Fortunately, the US had promised the islands independence in the 1930s, and had, more and more, given the government over to the Filipinos. That helped keep most of them on the allied side throughout the war.
Ah, competitive gerrymandering, that's how things should go
Virginia voters have approved a redistricting measure that could help Democrats in their bid to win control of the thinly divided US House of Representatives in the midterm elections later this year.
Dems do it. It’s fine and the nasty GOP made them do it. 👍
Anyway this lot of Gerrymandering seems to be net zero for both parties.
Well, I hope the Dems win big because if they cannot do that in a second Trump midterm even with net zero advantage on seat districting then they will surely never win again!
Redistricting for political advantage is so blatant - indeed, it might even be deemed protected? - it is crazy. I recall John Oliver struggling with it in one of his shows' earlier episodes, as he spent a lot of time going over how bad it was, but presumably as a nod to his politics then had to somehow suggest some egregious examples weren't as bad as they seemed, because maybe it was ok to try to join together random and disparate bits because you surely have to join up the people of similar (but not the same) ethnicities even where there's no other connections?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Long Johnson.
You must mention Boris around ten times every day
It does seem a smidgeon excessive
Nowhere near as many times as you mention Skyr. Although during these days of Starmer jeopardy that is perfectly acceptable.
Anyway, you don't like me posting at all so why not make like the a good right winger and plant some flags on me .
It's okay Pete, they hate me too.
Don't be silly
Disagreeing about politics is the DNA of this site but hate should have no part in it
Hating specific left and Centist posters is part of the fun of the site from both sides of the coin. It's a Tory site so that is fair enough. No one has come around to beat the c**p out of me yet. So all is good.
It looks like we have seen the back of Brixian, so one down several to go.
I think you are somewhat deluded. I see no evidence that PB, in its current iteration, is a Tory site. It might once have been. And I don't think many on here actively hate other posters, they perhaps strongly disagree and/or think them insane, but hate is remarkably absent from PB. It is one of the best places on the internet in that regard.
I could point you in the direction of some highly personal posts, but it's best not too. It's not as if any posters might get particularly heated because they didn't like the cut of one's jib.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
For me its Starmer and Sunak who are similar. Both think themselves a bit above the communication, representation and media bits of the job.
Boris for all his faults was very happy to be the front man.
I am not sure its they think themselves above it, they are just very poor at it. And if you know you are really poor at something and your advisor keep saying but PM you must do another interview or photoshoot or PR stunt, it probably fills you full of dreed, when you would much prefer to be sitting in our office reading about the finer points of some very dull economic forecast or legalise. But the modern age pretty much requires you to do act like the front man of a rock band.
I used to do everything possible to get out of art classes because it was always fucking drawing fruit or some such shit and not only did I not enjoy it I was fucking useless at it.
Very plausible. I think stuff like Rishi leaving remembrance celebrations early was kind of him thinking, I've got lots to do, I'm just hanging around here, maybe I can be off...
You're right that this stuff is the job. If you want to be the economics expert go get a job in academia or at the Treasury.
The Rishi leaving the remembrance celebrations was a very odd one, especially as it was only for an interview with ITV (or was it Ch5). Huge blot on his copybook, but in general most of his stuff he got in trouble for was just how uneasy he was out in public doing PR stunts or inadvertly displaying his incredible wealth and not really realising that having a £500 heated coffee mug mat is probably a bad look. Same with Starmet tweets, he has clearly been told you need to be on social media and it comes off as massively clunky.
They are just very bad at being social media "influencers". Where as Boris loves that shit like driving a JCB through a wall. He is like a middle aged Mr Beast, its all fake, its all for the camera, but they live for doing stuff that gets shared endlessly on social media.
In light of the Mandelson revelations, there must be a case for looking into the vetting process for Jonathan Powell, another senior figure from the Blair government who went on to earn a lot of money by founding a lobbying firm, and with financial links to foreign states or state-adjacent businesses.
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
For me its Starmer and Sunak who are similar. Both think themselves a bit above the communication, representation and media bits of the job.
Boris for all his faults was very happy to be the front man.
I am not sure its they think themselves above it, they are just very poor at it. And if you know you are really poor at something and your advisor keep saying but PM you must do another interview or photoshoot or PR stunt, it probably fills you full of dreed, when you would much prefer to be sitting in our office reading about the finer points of some very dull economic forecast or legalise. But the modern age pretty much requires you to do act like the front man of a rock band.
I used to do everything possible to get out of art classes because it was always fucking drawing fruit or some such shit and not only did I not enjoy it I was fucking useless at it.
Very plausible. I think stuff like Rishi leaving remembrance celebrations early was kind of him thinking, I've got lots to do, I'm just hanging around here, maybe I can be off...
You're right that this stuff is the job. If you want to be the economics expert go get a job in academia or at the Treasury.
The Rishi leaving the remembrance celebrations was a very odd one, especially as it was only for an interview with ITV (or was it Ch5). Huge blot on his copybook, but in general most of his stuff he got in trouble for was just how uneasy he was out in public doing PR stunts or inadvertly displaying his incredible wealth and not really realising that having a £500 heated coffee mug mat is probably a bad look. Same with Starmet tweets, he has clearly been told you need to be on social media and it comes off as massively clunky.
They are just very bad at being social media "influencers". Where as Boris loves that shit like driving a JCB through a wall.
I think ultimately that if the top two had been swapped around, Hunt as PM and Rishi as CotE that would have worked well.
Labour let Palantir - an American firm - have access to and process NHS data.
The Greens got Theil's job title wrong.
Which is worse? It's a puzzle I tell thee...
Thiel is the chair of the board i think?
Why are so many people exercised about having their anonymised health records used to aid medical research?
Distrust of tech bros. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, these people have never met a human being they wouldn't like to extract maximum wealth from as part of some disturbing dyspotian view of how society should develop, which they cover with messianic hyperbole.
In light of the Mandelson revelations, there must be a case for looking into the vetting process for Jonathan Powell, another senior figure from the Blair government who went on to earn a lot of money by founding a lobbying firm, and with financial links to foreign states or state-adjacent businesses.
Plus inviting Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to his wedding. The creep.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
For me its Starmer and Sunak who are similar. Both think themselves a bit above the communication, representation and media bits of the job.
Boris for all his faults was very happy to be the front man.
I am not sure its they think themselves above it, they are just very poor at it. And if you know you are really poor at something and your advisor keep saying but PM you must do another interview or photoshoot or PR stunt, it probably fills you full of dreed, when you would much prefer to be sitting in our office reading about the finer points of some very dull economic forecast or legalise. But the modern age pretty much requires you to do act like the front man of a rock band.
I used to do everything possible to get out of art classes because it was always fucking drawing fruit or some such shit and not only did I not enjoy it I was fucking useless at it.
Very plausible. I think stuff like Rishi leaving remembrance celebrations early was kind of him thinking, I've got lots to do, I'm just hanging around here, maybe I can be off...
You're right that this stuff is the job. If you want to be the economics expert go get a job in academia or at the Treasury.
The Rishi leaving the remembrance celebrations was a very odd one, especially as it was only for an interview with ITV (or was it Ch5). Huge blot on his copybook, but in general most of his stuff he got in trouble for was just how uneasy he was out in public doing PR stunts or inadvertly displaying his incredible wealth and not really realising that having a £500 heated coffee mug mat is probably a bad look. Same with Starmet tweets, he has clearly been told you need to be on social media and it comes off as massively clunky.
They are just very bad at being social media "influencers". Where as Boris loves that shit like driving a JCB through a wall.
I think ultimately that if the top two had been swapped around, Hunt as PM and Rishi as CotE that would have worked well.
In light of the Mandelson revelations, there must be a case for looking into the vetting process for Jonathan Powell, another senior figure from the Blair government who went on to earn a lot of money by founding a lobbying firm, and with financial links to foreign states or state-adjacent businesses.
As a Tory/ Reform supporter do you really want to open that particular can of worms?
Reform UK has been accused of a “systemic failure” in its vetting after candidates were found to have described the Nazis as “real visionaries”, complained that immigrants breed “like rats” and encouraged Southport rioters to burn down a mosque.
I told a Labour canvasser that I was voting Reform today. His face was a picture, a mixture of shock, anger and hurt
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
When a deal (of some kind) is done, the markets will soar even though they all know the impacts will linger for months at least, and Trump's base will declare total victory.
Reform UK has been accused of a “systemic failure” in its vetting after candidates were found to have described the Nazis as “real visionaries”, complained that immigrants breed “like rats” and encouraged Southport rioters to burn down a mosque.
@Leon wrote "I told a Labour canvasser that I was voting Reform today. His face was a picture, a mixture of shock, anger and hurt
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill"
We all had letters from Dr David Bull today. Only two weeks for Reform to save the Welsh NHS, apparently.
Reform UK has been accused of a “systemic failure” in its vetting after candidates were found to have described the Nazis as “real visionaries”, complained that immigrants breed “like rats” and encouraged Southport rioters to burn down a mosque.
I told a Labour canvasser that I was voting Reform today. His face was a picture, a mixture of shock, anger and hurt
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill
I’m afraid I’m going to have to sign your deportation order to Skegness !
In light of the Mandelson revelations, there must be a case for looking into the vetting process for Jonathan Powell, another senior figure from the Blair government who went on to earn a lot of money by founding a lobbying firm, and with financial links to foreign states or state-adjacent businesses.
Plus inviting Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to his wedding. The creep.
Hypothetically, if Powell's vetting had similar red flags and similar mitigations to Mandelson, it would undermine Starmer's defence that he wouldn't have appointed Mandelson if he had been told the full detail about the vetting, unless he also fires Powell.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Reform UK has been accused of a “systemic failure” in its vetting after candidates were found to have described the Nazis as “real visionaries”, complained that immigrants breed “like rats” and encouraged Southport rioters to burn down a mosque.
I told a Labour canvasser that I was voting Reform today. His face was a picture, a mixture of shock, anger and hurt
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill
I’m afraid I’m going to have to sign your deportation order to Skegness !
++++++++
I'm not at all sure I AM going to vote for Reform, I only said it to see his reaction. And his reaction was worth it. Hilariously upset, but tried to hide it, and failed
He actually said "well, each to their own" once he'd gotten control of his weedy, effete emotions
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
I have been surprised he hasn't headed off yet, but time will tell if he lasts the parliament - Brown technically lasted an entire parliament, but I don't think he was that engaged.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
An interesting contrast, when Sunak became PM, Mrs Sunak who is really into high fashion but made a huge point to designers etc that she buys from, do not offer me any freebies / deals because I am now the PM wifes, I won't accept them, I will only pay full price.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
Today at PMQs, Keir Starmer selectively quoted Olly Robbins’ evidence at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Starmer said on Mandelson’s vetting: "no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case".
But Robbins’ own written evidence to the Committee talks of an “atmosphere of pressure" from No10.
On Monday, Robbins told the Committee: "Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing".
Starmer was therefore wrong to say that "no pressure existed whatsoever".
He must correct the record immediately.
She is still clutching at straws when their is an absolute whopper of an egregious act right in front of her*.
* Sacking Robbins.
I do not agree
Starmer contradicted Robbins testimony to Thornberry
You should have flagged my post for my spelling "there" as "their".
I do not, nor will I flag any post but spelling and grammar are my failings times as well
Flagging posters for socialism and unacceptable spelling should be encouraged.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Cameron and Blair ruined their reputations by a stupid referendum and war . As for Sunak he seemed quite pragmatic on EU relations and was given a hospital pass by Truss and I don’t think we really got to see the best of him. He certainly didn’t embarrass the country . I don’t really have any animus towards him as opposed to Johnson who I loathe .
< I'm not at all sure I AM going to vote for Reform, I only said it to see his reaction. And his reaction was worth it. Hilariously upset, but tried to hide it, and failed
He actually said "well, each to their own" once he'd gotten control of his weedy, effete emotions
I once had a colleague canvassed by UKIP around the time of Brexit, and she sarcastically asked them if they thought someone like her (1st generation from North Africa, brought over when she was a baby in the 60s) would vote for them, which apparently threw them a little.
The funny thing was it turned out her own parents did vote for Brexit, in part because they didn't like how many eastern Europeans had come over and not integrated like them. She was most annoyed with them.
Here in a very different part of the London election battleground to Primrose Hill, we've had a Reform leaflet delivered this evening. Said leaflet pushes Clive Furness, the Mayoral candidate, who has, as we say round here, "form" in Newham politics along with the single candidate for our Ward.
It's a well put together leaflet in all honesty but in terms of detailed policy, allReform say is:
Your Money Matters Your Family Matters Your Vote Matters
Long on generalities, short on specifics, I'd argue.
By way of contrast, we also had a leaflet from the Christian People's Alliance which wasn't delivered through the letterbox but put under the windscreen wiper on my car (along with all the other cars parked in the road, many of which don't belong to locals).
The CPA Mayoral candidate is one Reverend Bharath Swamy and his six point plan for Newham can be summarised as follows:
1) I will guarantee everyone sleeping rough a night shelter with a free meal.
2) I will reduce crime by supporting anyone in Newham leaving prison giving them accommodation and assistance with paid work.
3) I will provide free supplementary schools for all children 4-16 that need additional help to improve education outcomes.
4) I will restore all boarded up houses and flats and put them into use immediately.
5) I will save money by cancelling all climate initiatives. We need to get rid of sulphur emissions but carbon is good for the environment and a natural part of life.
6) I will push government hard to get rid of commercial rates to help shops by introducing a turnover tax at 5% with a threshold of £125,000. Everyone will pay the same tax if they buy on line or in a shop.
I'd be interested to know what we think of the CPA's ideas which are certainly novel.
In a ward of Swindon (via an acquaintence) I've seen 3 Reform leaflets, 1 Labour, and 3 Conservative. No Green thus far.
I don't think it will do the latter much good if the national polls bear out, but they controlled the council for 20 years (even if Labour won big in the last couple of by thirds elections), so I guess are not going without a fight.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Cameron and Blair ruined their reputations by a stupid referendum and war . As for Sunak he seemed quite pragmatic on EU relations and was given a hospital pass by Truss and I don’t think we really got to see the best of him. He certainly didn’t embarrass the country . I don’t really have any animus towards him as opposed to Johnson who I loathe .
The worst that can be said of Sunak is that he said and did some gauche and clumsy things. "I don't have any working class friends" - but then he was about 18 when he said it. The Normandy D Day thing seems completely trivial in the light of Mandelson/Epstein and Chagos
Not a massively gifted politician but in an age of political dwarves Sunak has a bit of stature, which is ironic given than Sunak is so small he could run under a weasel
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Cameron and Blair ruined their reputations by a stupid referendum and war . As for Sunak he seemed quite pragmatic on EU relations and was given a hospital pass by Truss and I don’t think we really got to see the best of him. He certainly didn’t embarrass the country . I don’t really have any animus towards him as opposed to Johnson who I loathe .
The worst that can be said of Sunak is that he said and did some gauche and clumsy things. "I don't have any working class friends" - but then he was about 18 when he said it. The Normandy D Day thing seems completely trivial in the light of Mandelson/Epstein and Chagos
Not a massively gifted politician but in an age of political dwarves Sunak has a bit of stature, which is ironic given than Sunak is so small he could run under a weasel
Dwarves and weasels? Have you thought about writing a fantasy novel?
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
Yes, I am not saying he was good in absolute terms, I am saying he is good in RELATIVE terms, compared to those immediately before or since
Also, you could argue that Sunak made a brave decision against the grain. We keep asking politicians to do this, so we can't complain when they do it
In a ward of Swindon (via an acquaintence) I've seen 3 Reform leaflets, 1 Labour, and 3 Conservative. No Green thus far.
I don't think it will do the latter much good if the national polls bear out, but they controlled the council for 20 years (even if Labour won big in the last couple of by thirds elections), so I guess are not going without a fight.
One solitary leaflet, from the Lib Dems, here in the South West. In an addressed (but not stamped) envelope no less.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
Don't forget D-Day.
I was in hospital recovering from surgery and high on morphine and I couldn't believe he did that.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
Don't forget D-Day.
I was in hospital recovering from surgery and high on morphine and I couldn't believe he did that.
I think Rishi must have been on the drugs as well...
In a ward of Swindon (via an acquaintence) I've seen 3 Reform leaflets, 1 Labour, and 3 Conservative. No Green thus far.
I don't think it will do the latter much good if the national polls bear out, but they controlled the council for 20 years (even if Labour won big in the last couple of by thirds elections), so I guess are not going without a fight.
One solitary leaflet, from the Lib Dems, here in the South West. In an addressed (but not stamped) envelope no less.
Our ward is seldom the subject of much effort, but we've had a bundle of literature from both Lab and Con so far. Not seen anything yet from the other three.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
As it stands, about 25% of the country may seriously consider voting for any Whelk Party.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
Don't forget D-Day.
I was in hospital recovering from surgery and high on morphine and I couldn't believe he did that.
And, in the grand scheme of things, it was utterly trivial.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
And yet how often has such hubris invited nemesis?
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
I'm glad at least one journalist has noticed this. The mere fact that Robbins made a decision without reading the report (colour coded box marking) to me is crazy. That he then didn't raise this or investigate further when it became a scandal is incredible.
Today at PMQs, Keir Starmer selectively quoted Olly Robbins’ evidence at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Starmer said on Mandelson’s vetting: "no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case".
But Robbins’ own written evidence to the Committee talks of an “atmosphere of pressure" from No10.
On Monday, Robbins told the Committee: "Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing".
Starmer was therefore wrong to say that "no pressure existed whatsoever".
He must correct the record immediately.
She is still clutching at straws when their is an absolute whopper of an egregious act right in front of her*.
* Sacking Robbins.
I do not agree
Starmer contradicted Robbins testimony to Thornberry
Is @Mexicanpete the only poster who hasn't critised Starmer yet?
You have to be fair, but Kemi is right to take Starmer on when he directly contradicts Robbin's evidence
It depends what game Kemi is playing. There are three ways to get rid of Starmer: 1) persuade him to resign; 2) drive a wedge between the PLP and Starmer; 3) persuade the public to vote heavily against Labour in a fortnight's time.
The trouble with the third is that as this thread's header demonstrates, the public is not really following the rather legalistic, he said, she said, procedural ins and outs. Mandelson's appointment was a bit shady but they found out he was a wrong'un so they sacked him and some other bloke. Case closed.
I've forgotten where I'm going with this. Anyway...
Kemi has fallen back into asking essentially the same question six times and not responding to answers. The better Tory questions came before and after, with the questions about Doyle and Powell being given Mandy-like treatment. Kemi could have run with that.
We've just mentioned Palantir. Kemi could have used Mandelson's links there to wedge open the gap between Starmer and backbenchers over government contracts (and our data) given to Palantir.
Is it tomorrow when we discover when parliament rises and so whether Kemi can ask more PMQs next week?
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
I'm glad at least one journalist has noticed this. The mere fact that Robbins made a decision without reading the report (colour coded box marking) to me is crazy. That he then didn't raise this or investigate further when it became a scandal is incredible.
Even if Robbins felt under pressure to approve Mandelson's appointment, even if there was something scary said in a menacing Irish accent, surely the standing order "unless it involves doing something that would look terrible if it came out" should still have applied?
I'm trained not to accept "but the mean boy made me do it" from shameful-petulant Year 8 pupils. We're talking the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office here; he had a duty to push back and it doesn't look like he did.
(But none of this is really about the rational facts, if it ever was. That's the mistake Starmer, Badenoch and half the media are making. It's about the optics, and they are terrible for the current PM.)
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
It is when you can't fill your car up that people will _really_ notice.
I have a diesel estate. It is perfectly adequate for me and I had no intention of replacing it until I could do a like for like replacement with an electric one (VW have something, but look at the price!)
I'm seriously considering buying an electric car this week if only for the reason that we are travelling towards a wall that apparently nobody is talking about.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
Years from first becoming MP to becoming leader
Badenoch 7 years
Sunak 7 years
Truss 12 years
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
IDS - 9 years
Hague - 8 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 16 years.
You left out Michael Howard - 20 years.
Jeremy Hunt was first elected in 2005 so it's another datapoint for him being a potential Howard rather than Cleverly who became an MP a decade later.
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
I'm glad at least one journalist has noticed this. The mere fact that Robbins made a decision without reading the report (colour coded box marking) to me is crazy. That he then didn't raise this or investigate further when it became a scandal is incredible.
Even if Robbins felt under pressure to approve Mandelson's appointment, even if there was something scary said in a menacing Irish accent, surely the standing order "unless it involves doing something that would look terrible if it came out" should still have applied?
I'm trained not to accept "but the mean boy made me do it" from shameful-petulant Year 8 pupils. We're talking the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office here; he had a duty to push back and it doesn't look like he did.
(But none of this is really about the rational facts, if it ever was. That's the mistake Starmer, Badenoch and half the media are making. It's about the optics, and they are terrible for the current PM.)
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
And yet how often has such hubris invited nemesis?
Well, quite. The largest bloc of third party MPs in a century and still ignored by the political class, though judging by the local by elections, not by the voters...
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
And yet how often has such hubris invited nemesis?
Well, quite. The largest bloc of third party MPs in a century and still ignored by the political class, though judging by the local by elections, not by the voters...
Probably going to be third this time in the locals as well.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
Years from first becoming MP to becoming leader
Badenoch 7 years
Sunak 7 years
Truss 12 years
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
IDS - 9 years
Hague - 8 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 16 years.
You left out Michael Howard - 20 years.
Jeremy Hunt was first elected in 2005 so it's another datapoint for him being a potential Howard rather than Cleverly who became an MP a decade later.
Exclusive: Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly gives his strongest hint yet that he will run for Mayor of London in 2028.
"It would be daft for anyone who is passionate about politics not to at least consider it," he told me yesterday.
If he was not leader of the Conservative Party by then
He won’t be. Why are you so fixated on the idea of him becoming leader?
If the Tories are third or worse in May then Kemi would likely be gone and he probably would be.
If they are second or better then Kemi stays and Cleverly can run for Mayor instead
Your theory which you’ve been pounding the site with for months rests on a 20 month old hypothetical poll, and an upcoming hypothetical projection
Hypothetically, you might be right. But I don’t think anyone needs to hear it again
If it comes true, fucking go for it
But please stop, at least for now
Don't tell him what he can and cannot post.
He's a Tory activist, he's polite, and you know, he has a better handle on the Tory party than most.
Not just the Tories. He is knowledgeable about the Labour Party too. Always readable and often helpful. HYUFD has been the mainstay of this site for at least a decade. He has some "interesting" views, particularly on class, education and Boris Johnson, but he doesn't spam the site with party political propaganda.
HYUFD is a great poster whatever one's political stripe.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
Years from first becoming MP to becoming leader
Badenoch 7 years
Sunak 7 years
Truss 12 years
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
IDS - 9 years
Hague - 8 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 16 years.
You left out Michael Howard - 20 years.
Jeremy Hunt was first elected in 2005 so it's another datapoint for him being a potential Howard rather than Cleverly who became an MP a decade later.
Blair - 11 years ?
He never became Tory leader. Maybe he would have been a better PM if he was batting for the other team.
Today at PMQs, Keir Starmer selectively quoted Olly Robbins’ evidence at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Starmer said on Mandelson’s vetting: "no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case".
But Robbins’ own written evidence to the Committee talks of an “atmosphere of pressure" from No10.
On Monday, Robbins told the Committee: "Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing".
Starmer was therefore wrong to say that "no pressure existed whatsoever".
He must correct the record immediately.
She is still clutching at straws when their is an absolute whopper of an egregious act right in front of her*.
* Sacking Robbins.
I do not agree
Starmer contradicted Robbins testimony to Thornberry
Is @Mexicanpete the only poster who hasn't critised Starmer yet?
You have to be fair, but Kemi is right to take Starmer on when he directly contradicts Robbin's evidence
It depends what game Kemi is playing. There are three ways to get rid of Starmer: 1) persuade him to resign; 2) drive a wedge between the PLP and Starmer; 3) persuade the public to vote heavily against Labour in a fortnight's time.
The trouble with the third is that as this thread's header demonstrates, the public is not really following the rather legalistic, he said, she said, procedural ins and outs. Mandelson's appointment was a bit shady but they found out he was a wrong'un so they sacked him and some other bloke. Case closed.
I've forgotten where I'm going with this. Anyway...
Kemi has fallen back into asking essentially the same question six times and not responding to answers. The better Tory questions came before and after, with the questions about Doyle and Powell being given Mandy-like treatment. Kemi could have run with that.
We've just mentioned Palantir. Kemi could have used Mandelson's links there to wedge open the gap between Starmer and backbenchers over government contracts (and our data) given to Palantir.
Is it tomorrow when we discover when parliament rises and so whether Kemi can ask more PMQs next week?
Yes
As far as I am concerned Kemi is doing fine turning the screw whilst staring at the cabinet
Kemi knows it is his own cabinet and mps who will act at some point
Exclusive: Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly gives his strongest hint yet that he will run for Mayor of London in 2028.
"It would be daft for anyone who is passionate about politics not to at least consider it," he told me yesterday.
If he was not leader of the Conservative Party by then
He won’t be. Why are you so fixated on the idea of him becoming leader?
If the Tories are third or worse in May then Kemi would likely be gone and he probably would be.
If they are second or better then Kemi stays and Cleverly can run for Mayor instead
Your theory which you’ve been pounding the site with for months rests on a 20 month old hypothetical poll, and an upcoming hypothetical projection
Hypothetically, you might be right. But I don’t think anyone needs to hear it again
If it comes true, fucking go for it
But please stop, at least for now
Don't tell him what he can and cannot post.
He's a Tory activist, he's polite, and you know, he has a better handle on the Tory party than most.
Not just the Tories. He is knowledgeable about the Labour Party too. Always readable and often helpful. HYUFD has been the mainstay of this site for at least a decade. He has some "interesting" views, particularly on class, education and Boris Johnson, but he doesn't spam the site with party political propaganda.
HYUFD is a great poster whatever one's political stripe.
Also, from time to time he paints himself into a corner and refuses to admit it. Which is usually very amusing.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
Nope. He cancelled HS2 to Manchester in...erm... a major party speech in... erm ... Manchester. So he has the political antenna of a welk.
His effective political career lasted less than ten years from entering parliament to becoming PM to losing an election (and has now spent 2 years pootling along in the backbenches). He became a junior minister within three years and into the Cabinet in four.
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
See also Starmer. Became an MP in May 2015, in the Shadow Cabinet by September 2015, party leader from April 2020. Neither of them either had the experience of fighting hopeless seats first (virtually all their modern predecessors) or being on the local council (Councillor Major, chairman of housing; Councillor May, chairman of education... even Bonkers Liz, though I don't think she got beyond opposition backbencher).
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
It hasn't been. Even recently May and Boris had plenty of experience. But now if you don't make it early it appears very hard.
Years from first becoming MP to becoming leader
Badenoch 7 years
Sunak 7 years
Truss 12 years
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
IDS - 9 years
Hague - 8 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 16 years.
You left out Michael Howard - 20 years.
Jeremy Hunt was first elected in 2005 so it's another datapoint for him being a potential Howard rather than Cleverly who became an MP a decade later.
Blair - 11 years ?
He never became Tory leader. Maybe he would have been a better PM if he was batting for the other team.
Hah! Fair point. Missed that important qualification.
Are Starmer and Boris rather more similar than either would care to admit?
Neither were across the detail, both were inconsistent, hugely self-absorbed, liked to blame others, and rapidly lost the confidence of their team.
The difference is that Starmer doesn't have the humour or the sex, but loves process, and Boris was more flippant and lazy, but loved a story.
I think Starmer’s downfall has been hubris. You think of the period he was LotO. Covid, Ukraine, Inflation, Truss, Boris and Sunak effectively being the captain of the Tory Titanic.
During Covid and Ukraine/Inflation he was able to continually attack the gov for their decisions and say he would do differently and this could never be tested.
He was up against a Tory gov who so many people, including the media, were happy to get rid of.
He was praised by his party and others for “forensically” taking apart Boris at PMQs. He had the freest of free hits v Truss and his attacks on Sunak were obnoxiously arrogant.
I think he really did believe that he was more intelligent than Sunak, a better politician than Boris and he would sweep in and be a “grown up” and be “fair” and that would be enough.
He worked in a rarified world where he was a human rights lawyer then running the CPS, that doesn’t shriek of wide experience with business, industry (sorry, forgot his old man was a toolmaker) the wider public sector, the military or frankly anything but his arrogance made him think he had all the answers and skills.
Rishi is cleverer than SKS and Boris has more charisma, he was just better than Corbyn and at the time seemed of more moral character than Boris and offered a fresh face to the Tories after the Truss disaster and partygate. Sunak would easily beat Starmer now in a rerun of the last general election I expect
That's an astute point. Looking back Sunak seems like a political titan compared to Starmer. Also quite honest and truthful - compared to Starmer - partly, it must be said,, because he's so insanely rich he doesn;t need to blag for free spectacles. Sunak also seems quite patriotic, in a genuine way. He hasn't scarpered to California since losing, as many predicted, and many expected. And he's genuinely clever, unlike Starmer and has emotional intelligence, unlike Starmer, Truss and TMay
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
I don't think he was good. I do agree after 14 years it was a very very difficult task he was not up to, especially after the Boris-Truss-Sunak switcharound torpedoed the party's appearance of competence.
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
Yes possibly. It might just be the utter utter shiteness of Starmer which is making Sunak seem good. Because is Starmer is stupefyingly bad
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
And yet how often has such hubris invited nemesis?
Well, quite. The largest bloc of third party MPs in a century and still ignored by the political class, though judging by the local by elections, not by the voters...
They got fewer votes than Reform. As believers in PR, they can hardly use "seats won" as a grievance.
It's been a disrupted day in my part of London. Despite what someone on here posted earlier and some BBC News coverage, the tube strike has been pretty effective in East London with no Hammersmith & City line trains at all and the District operating a 10 minute service through East Ham so six trains an hour instead of the usual twenty.
Mrs Stodge's ex-work colleague reported buses to be really busy in south London as well.
This has been rumbling on for a year since ASLEF drivers accepted the changes to hours.
What I don't quite understand is RMT represent about half the tube drivers so ASLEF are the other half - you might therefore expect, with half the drivers away, roughly half the service to be operating but it seems much less than that.
There also seems some confusion over what TfL are offering which seems to be longer shifts but fewer of them per week while RMT, typically, seem to simply want to work fewer hours for the same money.
There's an element of a "plague on both your houses" about this.
MacCallum: Does the president view that as a violation of the ceasefire?
Leavitt: No, because these were not U.S. Ships. These were not Israeli ships. For the American media who is sort of blowing this out of proportion to discredit the president's facts that he has completely obliterated Iran's conventional navy, these two ships were taken by Iranian gunboats. They don’t have control of the strait. This is piracy.
Exclusive: Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly gives his strongest hint yet that he will run for Mayor of London in 2028.
"It would be daft for anyone who is passionate about politics not to at least consider it," he told me yesterday.
If he was not leader of the Conservative Party by then
He won’t be. Why are you so fixated on the idea of him becoming leader?
If the Tories are third or worse in May then Kemi would likely be gone and he probably would be.
If they are second or better then Kemi stays and Cleverly can run for Mayor instead
Your theory which you’ve been pounding the site with for months rests on a 20 month old hypothetical poll, and an upcoming hypothetical projection
Hypothetically, you might be right. But I don’t think anyone needs to hear it again
If it comes true, fucking go for it
But please stop, at least for now
Don't tell him what he can and cannot post.
He's a Tory activist, he's polite, and you know, he has a better handle on the Tory party than most.
Not just the Tories. He is knowledgeable about the Labour Party too. Always readable and often helpful. HYUFD has been the mainstay of this site for at least a decade. He has some "interesting" views, particularly on class, education and Boris Johnson, but he doesn't spam the site with party political propaganda.
HYUFD is a great poster whatever one's political stripe.
Also, from time to time he paints himself into a corner and refuses to admit it. Which is usually very amusing.
It's been a disrupted day in my part of London. Despite what someone on here posted earlier and some BBC News coverage, the tube strike has been pretty effective in East London with no Hammersmith & City line trains at all and the District operating a 10 minute service through East Ham so six trains an hour instead of the usual twenty.
Mrs Stodge's ex-work colleague reported buses to be really busy in south London as well.
This has been rumbling on for a year since ASLEF drivers accepted the changes to hours.
What I don't quite understand is RMT represent about half the tube drivers so ASLEF are the other half - you might therefore expect, with half the drivers away, roughly half the service to be operating but it seems much less than that.
There also seems some confusion over what TfL are offering which seems to be longer shifts but fewer of them per week while RMT, typically, seem to simply want to work fewer hours for the same money.
There's an element of a "plague on both your houses" about this.
But also, tube strikes are much less effective than they were.
The Lizzie Line was busy this morning, but the capacity is so ginormous that it sucked up a fair bit of the East London-into-Central traffic without so much as a burp. Thameslink probably does the same north-south. Add in hire bikes and WFH and it's much harder for tube drivers to hold the city to ransom in the old way.
Labour let Palantir - an American firm - have access to and process NHS data.
The Greens got Theil's job title wrong.
Which is worse? It's a puzzle I tell thee...
Thiel is the chair of the board i think?
Why are so many people exercised about having their anonymised health records used to aid medical research?
There is a lot of suspicion of Palantir, not least that the data will not be anonymised. The CEO of Palantir published a 22 point manifesto recently that could politely described as concerning.
Comments
GOP do it. Very bad
Dems do it. It’s fine and the nasty GOP made them do it. 👍
Anyway this lot of Gerrymandering seems to be net zero for both parties.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mk42pahkf22r
https://x.com/theipaper/status/2046468152574296298?s=61
- Labour let Palantir - an American firm - have access to and process NHS data.
- The Greens got Theil's job title wrong.
Which is worse? It's a puzzle I tell thee...(Throws Up)
Anyway, moving on, at least the Supreme Court is likely to hand him a big win about late arriving ballots to cheer him up.
Disclaimer: I own no property.
I think stuff like Rishi leaving remembrance celebrations early was kind of him thinking, I've got lots to do, I'm just hanging around here, maybe I can be off...
You're right that this stuff is the job. If you want to be the economics expert go get a job in academia or at the Treasury.
"Exclusive: Hermer pursued British troops with war crime lies
Attorney General dismissed warnings that Iraqi claims of murder were false as he worked on case against soldiers"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/22/exclusive-hermer-veterans-war-crimes-injustice-british-army/
For example, a few little islands like Guam, Luzon, and Mindanao.
The Japanese attack on the Philippines began just hours after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Fortunately, the US had promised the islands independence in the 1930s, and had, more and more, given the government over to the Filipinos. That helped keep most of them on the allied side throughout the war.
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/the-guilty-men-the-ideologues-who-undermine-britain/
(Reprinted from the Speccie)
Redistricting for political advantage is so blatant - indeed, it might even be deemed protected? - it is crazy. I recall John Oliver struggling with it in one of his shows' earlier episodes, as he spent a lot of time going over how bad it was, but presumably as a nod to his politics then had to somehow suggest some egregious examples weren't as bad as they seemed, because maybe it was ok to try to join together random and disparate bits because you surely have to join up the people of similar (but not the same) ethnicities even where there's no other connections?
All in the past. All in the past.
They are just very bad at being social media "influencers". Where as Boris loves that shit like driving a JCB through a wall. He is like a middle aged Mr Beast, its all fake, its all for the camera, but they live for doing stuff that gets shared endlessly on social media.
@Timodc
I maintain that most people haven’t registered the scale of calamity that is gonna result from this
Quote
Dan Lamothe
@DanLamothe
EXCLUSIVE: It could take six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines deployed by the Iranian military, and any such operation is unlikely to be carried out until the U.S. war with Iran ends, the Pentagon has informed Congress — an assessment that means the conflict’s
https://x.com/Timodc/status/2047007051398713672
Seems like a minor error.
Why do friends of Nathan Gill spring to mind?
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill"
We all had letters from Dr David Bull today. Only two weeks for Reform to save the Welsh NHS, apparently.
I guess they don't meet many in the rugged borderlands of Primrose Hill
I’m afraid I’m going to have to sign your deportation order to Skegness !
https://x.com/DovForman/status/2046989100423471326
Argument: Sunak was potentially the best prime minister since Cameron, and maybe even Blair, he just never got the chance because the Tory brand was Ratnered. Discuss
++++++++
I'm not at all sure I AM going to vote for Reform, I only said it to see his reaction. And his reaction was worth it. Hilariously upset, but tried to hide it, and failed
He actually said "well, each to their own" once he'd gotten control of his weedy, effete emotions
He got a really poor hand but he still played it pretty badly.
I have been surprised he hasn't headed off yet, but time will tell if he lasts the parliament - Brown technically lasted an entire parliament, but I don't think he was that engaged.
The worst prime minister of my life, without question. Worse than Truss because she was crazy but she was gone within about 3 minutes, and she did at least have some ideas - even a couple of good ideas - she just didn't know how to enact them
Starmer is an intellectual void, married to a moral vacuum surrounding an emotional nullity. And he's a wanker
The funny thing was it turned out her own parents did vote for Brexit, in part because they didn't like how many eastern Europeans had come over and not integrated like them. She was most annoyed with them.
Here in a very different part of the London election battleground to Primrose Hill, we've had a Reform leaflet delivered this evening. Said leaflet pushes Clive Furness, the Mayoral candidate, who has, as we say round here, "form" in Newham politics along with the single candidate for our Ward.
It's a well put together leaflet in all honesty but in terms of detailed policy, allReform say is:
Your Money Matters
Your Family Matters
Your Vote Matters
Long on generalities, short on specifics, I'd argue.
By way of contrast, we also had a leaflet from the Christian People's Alliance which wasn't delivered through the letterbox but put under the windscreen wiper on my car (along with all the other cars parked in the road, many of which don't belong to locals).
The CPA Mayoral candidate is one Reverend Bharath Swamy and his six point plan for Newham can be summarised as follows:
1) I will guarantee everyone sleeping rough a night shelter with a free meal.
2) I will reduce crime by supporting anyone in Newham leaving prison giving them accommodation and assistance with paid work.
3) I will provide free supplementary schools for all children 4-16 that need additional help to improve education outcomes.
4) I will restore all boarded up houses and flats and put them into use immediately.
5) I will save money by cancelling all climate initiatives. We need to get rid of sulphur emissions but carbon is good for the environment and a natural part of life.
6) I will push government hard to get rid of commercial rates to help shops by introducing a turnover tax at 5% with a threshold of £125,000. Everyone will pay the same tax if they buy on line or in a shop.
I'd be interested to know what we think of the CPA's ideas which are certainly novel.
I don't think it will do the latter much good if the national polls bear out, but they controlled the council for 20 years (even if Labour won big in the last couple of by thirds elections), so I guess are not going without a fight.
Not a massively gifted politician but in an age of political dwarves Sunak has a bit of stature, which is ironic given than Sunak is so small he could run under a weasel
My in laws, N Tyneside, had Labour knock but told them they weren’t voting.
My Father in Law would never vote Reform as he finds Farage smarmy.
I do wonder how bad the turnout is going to be in some parts of the country.
Presumably the disrupters (Reform/Green) from enthusiasm, as embattered Tory/Labour voters mope at home?
SNP and Plaid somewhere in the middle
Lib Dems, fuck knows. Who cares. I'd quite like the LDs to finally die off now because we have too many parties
Also, you could argue that Sunak made a brave decision against the grain. We keep asking politicians to do this, so we can't complain when they do it
As in 2024 when the Tories had voters stay at home. I suspect Labour and Tory voters will sit this out.
My in laws are lifelong Labour voters, even voting for that idiot Mary Glindon, but they have had enough.
The Greens of Waveney and N Herefordshire.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/22/olly-robbins-mandelson-vetting-file-foreign-office-analysis
He probably never had the chance to develop any political antennae.
I was in hospital recovering from surgery and high on morphine and I couldn't believe he did that.
Every other profession accepts the need for a decent apprenticeship before you start taking big independent jobs. It's not a partisan point, but why did anyone think politics was different?
The mere fact that Robbins made a decision without reading the report (colour coded box marking) to me is crazy. That he then didn't raise this or investigate further when it became a scandal is incredible.
The trouble with the third is that as this thread's header demonstrates, the public is not really following the rather legalistic, he said, she said, procedural ins and outs. Mandelson's appointment was a bit shady but they found out he was a wrong'un so they sacked him and some other bloke. Case closed.
I've forgotten where I'm going with this. Anyway...
Kemi has fallen back into asking essentially the same question six times and not responding to answers. The better Tory questions came before and after, with the questions about Doyle and Powell being given Mandy-like treatment. Kemi could have run with that.
We've just mentioned Palantir. Kemi could have used Mandelson's links there to wedge open the gap between Starmer and backbenchers over government contracts (and our data) given to Palantir.
Is it tomorrow when we discover when parliament rises and so whether Kemi can ask more PMQs next week?
Badenoch - 7 years
Sunak - 7 years
Truss -12 years
Johnson - 18 years
May - 19 years
Cameron - 4 years
Howard - 20 years
IDS - 9 years
Hague - 8 years
Major - 11 years
Thatcher - 16 years.
I'm trained not to accept "but the mean boy made me do it" from shameful-petulant Year 8 pupils. We're talking the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office here; he had a duty to push back and it doesn't look like he did.
(But none of this is really about the rational facts, if it ever was. That's the mistake Starmer, Badenoch and half the media are making. It's about the optics, and they are terrible for the current PM.)
I have a diesel estate. It is perfectly adequate for me and I had no intention of replacing it until I could do a like for like replacement with an electric one (VW have something, but look at the price!)
I'm seriously considering buying an electric car this week if only for the reason that we are travelling towards a wall that apparently nobody is talking about.
[A bit 'Prepper' perhaps]
Jeremy Hunt was first elected in 2005 so it's another datapoint for him being a potential Howard rather than Cleverly who became an MP a decade later.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2046874103164895378
HYUFD is a great poster whatever one's political stripe.
As far as I am concerned Kemi is doing fine turning the screw whilst staring at the cabinet
Kemi knows it is his own cabinet and mps who will act at some point
Starmer - 5 years
Corbyn - 29 years
Miliband - 5 years
Brown - 24 years
Blair - 11 years
Smith - 22 years
Kinnock - 13 years
Foot - 35 years
Callaghan - 31 years
Wilson - 18 years
Ok then how about Eden - 32 years?
Or Churchill - 36 years ?
Mrs Stodge's ex-work colleague reported buses to be really busy in south London as well.
This has been rumbling on for a year since ASLEF drivers accepted the changes to hours.
What I don't quite understand is RMT represent about half the tube drivers so ASLEF are the other half - you might therefore expect, with half the drivers away, roughly half the service to be operating but it seems much less than that.
There also seems some confusion over what TfL are offering which seems to be longer shifts but fewer of them per week while RMT, typically, seem to simply want to work fewer hours for the same money.
There's an element of a "plague on both your houses" about this.
MacCallum: Does the president view that as a violation of the ceasefire?
Leavitt: No, because these were not U.S. Ships. These were not Israeli ships. For the American media who is sort of blowing this out of proportion to discredit the president's facts that he has completely obliterated Iran's conventional navy, these two ships were taken by Iranian gunboats. They don’t have control of the strait. This is piracy.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2047033064162046045
That's both insane and somethng that explains a lot.
(Checks- he had about 2 years between becoming an MP and joining the cabinet. That really explains a lot.)
Make the US the 11th Canadian province
The Lizzie Line was busy this morning, but the capacity is so ginormous that it sucked up a fair bit of the East London-into-Central traffic without so much as a burp. Thameslink probably does the same north-south. Add in hire bikes and WFH and it's much harder for tube drivers to hold the city to ransom in the old way.
Dame Esther Rantzen’s daughter ‘furious’ as assisted dying bill fails
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/21/palantir-manifesto-uk-contract-fears-mps?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other