I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
It's a race to the bottom with the Premier League football managers.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
Starmer is a busted flush.
The only consequence of Starmer hanging around is that Labour plunge even further into the abyss. He cannot improve the Party whilst he is at the top. He would be more useful in the Lords.
Just in case anyone was thinking the Democrats are going to win 100 seats in the mid-terms, this is their new young activist, Hasan Piker. He thinks we should be stealing from supermarkets and looting art galleries, and that the healthcare executive murdered in cold blood last year was a justified homicide.
In a two party system, you get loons on both sides.
The difference is that Piker is a marginal figure; in the GOP the loons are in charge.
Is Piker a candidate, or does he hold any official position ? No. And most voters in the US have never heard of him.
But nice try.
The reason he’s in the news today, is that a small blog called The New York Times has done a soft-soap interview with him, where he promotes political violence and petty crime. They’re trying to make him mainstream.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
Good evening
I have listestened to both testimonies and to be honest they are as clear as mud
I reserve judgement on which version is factual, but certainly the consensus is Robbins was sacked unfairly
I would suggest we await next weeks testimony from McSweeney and Philip Barton which may shed even more light on the torturous way the civil service works
Starmer was unwise to contradict Robbins evidence at the dispatch box yesterday, and the opposition parties are seeking the Speaker to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee
I understand Graham Stringer has called for Starmer to resign - now there is an interesting seat for Burnham
(They are a radical right group who were set up by a refugee from UKIP in 2020, and tend to be into exactly what you would expect plus a lot of conspiracy theories.)
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
Whether Starmer lied is one of the matters at hand. There is also the question of whether the Cabinet and party have lost faith in a man increasingly revealed to have no vision and no loyalty.
I was at my first full time job but had nothing to do (it was funded by a government programme to get people into work, which it did, but didn't mean there was any work to be done), so had a fair amount of time to follow the 2010 GE. I think it was around the time of bigotgate.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
It's a race to the bottom with the Premier League football managers.
That's part of the problem. It's easy to shout 'sack the manager'. But if the club has a collapsing stadium that hasn't been upgraded, a training ground that floods every winter and a youth scheme that has almost completely collapsed, it's not really down to the manager.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
It's a race to the bottom with the Premier League football managers.
That's part of the problem. It's easy to shout 'sack the manager'. But if the club has a collapsing stadium that hasn't been upgraded, a training ground that floods every winter and a youth scheme that has almost completely collapsed, it's not really down to the manager.
The funny thing is it appears the length of the contract is increasing as the tenure decreases, to keep the position attractive. On current trends they'll at some point be getting hired for 10 year contracts to manage for 10 games.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Sure, we don't really need to eliminate the deficit (which would be hard enough), we actually need to run a surplus sufficiently large to repay debt as it falls due. Only then can we escape the judgment of the bond markets. That probably needs a rebalancing of more like £180bn a year, a seriously large sum.
Just in case anyone was thinking the Democrats are going to win 100 seats in the mid-terms, this is their new young activist, Hasan Piker. He thinks we should be stealing from supermarkets and looting art galleries, and that the healthcare executive murdered in cold blood last year was a justified homicide.
In a two party system, you get loons on both sides.
The difference is that Piker is a marginal figure; in the GOP the loons are in charge.
Is Piker a candidate, or does he hold any official position ? No. And most voters in the US have never heard of him.
But nice try.
The reason he’s in the news today, is that a small blog called The New York Times has done a soft-soap interview with him, where he promotes political violence and petty crime. They’re trying to make him mainstream.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Would the rate not collapse if we rsn a balanced budget? Ultimate safe country. Or is even a solvent UK a dodgy option given global conditions.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
How do they do it? Everything seems sluggish and anaemic, and there's so many calls on the public purse.
Was it really wise for Keir Starmer to kick Whitehall as hard as he has?
At this point, readers could be forgiven for failing to follow every nuance of the latest select committee with a top official on the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. We’ve been at it for days. We didn’t learn a huge amount. It’s sunny outside.
As it happens, some things that cabinet office permanent secretary, Cat Little, said were helpful to Keir Starmer, some were unhelpful to Olly Robbins and some were interesting but fall into neither category.
But this was an unusual appearance by a top official before the foreign affairs select committee, for officials from other than the sponsoring department rarely appear before a committee. It came only because of Number 10 wanted it to happen.
By why?
This was an act that dragged the Robbins-Mandelson-Starmer saga into its seventh consecutive day - a row in which Starmer has been fighting another mandarin over matters of process and procedure.
Olly Robbins is concerned for his reputation in Whitehall and his ability to get another job - but his public reputation does not really matter one bit.
But Starmer still could fall yet further in the eyes of the public - and given it wasn’t an unambiguous win simply keeping the issue in the headlines is a loss.
This is also a disastrous signal for the wider civil service. Officials feel like they are pushed into taking sides. Some now mistrust the prime minister.
Whitehall, for better or worse, is the only engine room a prime minister has had - so is it really wise to kick it as hard as he has?
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
It's a race to the bottom with the Premier League football managers.
That's part of the problem. It's easy to shout 'sack the manager'. But if the club has a collapsing stadium that hasn't been upgraded, a training ground that floods every winter and a youth scheme that has almost completely collapsed, it's not really down to the manager.
The funny thing is it appears the length of the contract is increasing as the tenure decreases, to keep the position attractive. On current trends they'll at some point be getting hired for 10 year contracts to manage for 10 games.
Nice work if you can get it!
One gig and retire with an eight-figure bank balance.
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
I found it through Guido Fawkes as one of his recommended sites having seen him as a guest on Andrew. Eli’s daily politics programme whilst I was bored on gardening leave in 2007. Haven’t read Guido for a million years but forever thankful he led me here.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
It’s almost like the Labour rulebook is designed to make removing a leader as painful and drawn-out as possible.
You don’t just get a few twitchy MPs and a bad set of results and suddenly it’s over. It takes a full-blown, undeniable crisis plus organisation, numbers, and someone willing to actually wield the knife. Even then it tends to drag.
Blair only went after a decade in power and a very deliberate, coordinated effort. That’s the exception people keep citing, which tells you how rare it is.
So yes, if Starmer were leading the Tories he’d probably have been measured for the curtains already. In Labour, unless things get properly catastrophic, the system defaults to inertia.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Sure, we don't really need to eliminate the deficit (which would be hard enough), we actually need to run a surplus sufficiently large to repay debt as it falls due. Only then can we escape the judgment of the bond markets. That probably needs a rebalancing of more like £180bn a year, a seriously large sum.
And that would be net. Arguably the country could do with a bit more spending on a few priority areas (such as criminal justice, defence and preventing the collapse of social care) so you need to find even more money from elsewhere.
Instead there's a decent chance of some form of fuel/energy subsidy later this year.
Was it really wise for Keir Starmer to kick Whitehall as hard as he has?
At this point, readers could be forgiven for failing to follow every nuance of the latest select committee with a top official on the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. We’ve been at it for days. We didn’t learn a huge amount. It’s sunny outside.
As it happens, some things that cabinet office permanent secretary, Cat Little, said were helpful to Keir Starmer, some were unhelpful to Olly Robbins and some were interesting but fall into neither category.
But this was an unusual appearance by a top official before the foreign affairs select committee, for officials from other than the sponsoring department rarely appear before a committee. It came only because of Number 10 wanted it to happen.
By why?
This was an act that dragged the Robbins-Mandelson-Starmer saga into its seventh consecutive day - a row in which Starmer has been fighting another mandarin over matters of process and procedure.
Olly Robbins is concerned for his reputation in Whitehall and his ability to get another job - but his public reputation does not really matter one bit.
But Starmer still could fall yet further in the eyes of the public - and given it wasn’t an unambiguous win simply keeping the issue in the headlines is a loss.
This is also a disastrous signal for the wider civil service. Officials feel like they are pushed into taking sides. Some now mistrust the prime minister.
Whitehall, for better or worse, is the only engine room a prime minister has had - so is it really wise to kick it as hard as he has?
Key paragraph is surely para 3:
As it happens, some things that cabinet office permanent secretary, Cat Little, said were helpful to Keir Starmer, some were unhelpful to Olly Robbins and some were interesting but fall into neither category.
That sounds like a win for the PM. Not necessarily a free win, but a win. The media pack aren't the Canadian Mounties, there's no reason to think they always get their man.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
I thought that the betting markets probably had a lot of insider knowledge that was not available to the public and so might give a better idea of what was likely to happen*. I am not sure when but I think it was about 2008. Certainly a long time ago.
* On balance, this theory has not been vindicated.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
Entirely baffled as to why we aren’t doing a massive push to reform the Refugee Convention, or else just abandoning it entirely.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
The Boris precedent shows that, if push comes to shove, the rulebook doesn't really matter. If the Cabinet really wanted to pull the plug, they could do so this evening by refusing to serve under him. (I suspect that it wouldn't come to that, and it might not even need the Maggie deposition method to get Starmer to go.)
Conclusion: the Cabinet don't want to pull the plug yet, because they are not confident that they will like what happens next. So we all wobble on.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Would the rate not collapse if we rsn a balanced budget? Ultimate safe country. Or is even a solvent UK a dodgy option given global conditions.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
Yes, you'd expect the rate to go down by a lot if a Chancellor was able to pass the many unpopular measures required to balance the budget. There'd be a serious increase in fiscal credibility as a result. And then we'd likely be in a virtuous cycle of increased credibility leading to lower borrowing costs, reducing the debt interest bill, further improving the fiscal balance.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
Both? For different reasons But in this case, given @BatteryCorrectHorse's connections, I'd skew that way... However, this is a market of which I'm steering clear
Once a leadership race is confirmed, I'll be back in,
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Would the rate not collapse if we rsn a balanced budget? Ultimate safe country. Or is even a solvent UK a dodgy option given global conditions.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
Yes, you'd expect the rate to go down by a lot if a Chancellor was able to pass the many unpopular measures required to balance the budget. There'd be a serious increase in fiscal credibility as a result. And then we'd likely be in a virtuous cycle of increased credibility leading to lower borrowing costs, reducing the debt interest bill, further improving the fiscal balance.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
Yep. I think DavidL is wrong about the need for the surplus; as long as we’re the best option then we’re good in terms of borrowing costs.
Running a surplus would be lovely for my generation though, so by all means…
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
I thought that the betting markets probably had a lot of insider knowledge that was not available to the public and so might give a better idea of what was likely to happen*. I am not sure when but I think it was about 2008. Certainly a long time ago.
* On balance, this theory has not been vindicated.
Have a look at Kalshi and betting on Trump tweets (i.e. US policy for the next 12 hours) if you still want such an angle confirmed.....
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Would the rate not collapse if we rsn a balanced budget? Ultimate safe country. Or is even a solvent UK a dodgy option given global conditions.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
Yes, you'd expect the rate to go down by a lot if a Chancellor was able to pass the many unpopular measures required to balance the budget. There'd be a serious increase in fiscal credibility as a result. And then we'd likely be in a virtuous cycle of increased credibility leading to lower borrowing costs, reducing the debt interest bill, further improving the fiscal balance.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
Yep. I think DavidL is wrong about the need for the surplus; as long as we’re the best option then we’re good in terms of borrowing costs.
Running a surplus would be lovely for my generation though, so by all means…
I am just saying that a surplus sufficient to repay debt as it falls due is the only way not to be beholden to the bond market because you simply don't need their money. Of course, even reducing the deficit to nil would make us a lot better lending proposition and reduce the cost of refunding our debt. As usual, its a balance and our current economy is massively unbalanced.
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
How do they do it? Everything seems sluggish and anaemic, and there's so many calls on the public purse.
Lots of ideas are bandied around on here, but the main thing is that they have to convince the voters that it's necessary. The pattern in recent budget speeches is to reel off a set of numbers of eye-watering sums of money to be borrowed, to claim that everything will be fine in five years time (but it never is) and then say that because the Chancellor is running things so well, they can afford to spend more money on the favoured interest group du jour.
So it would help if they were a bit more honest about the precarious fiscal situation Britain was in. It's hard for Labour to do that, because they weren't honest in opposition about how hard it would be to turn things around. It's hard for the Tories to do it, because they were in government for 14 years and bequeathed this situation to Labour, with huge national insurance tax cuts to demonstrate how deeply in denial they were. Reform don't want to do it, because they want to persuade everyone they will be able to spend more on their favoured interest groups while cutting taxes. The Greens don't want to do it because they want to persuade everyone that they will be able to spend a lot more with only some people paying higher taxes.
So that leaves the Lib Dems. I don't know why they aren't doing it. I guess they rather like the experience of having more than a dozen MPs, and don't want to be wiped out again at the next election by trying to tell the public the truth.
There is no fiscal prudence party, let alone two flavours of fiscal prudence parties so that we can choose what variety of fiscal prudence we favour.
Oil prices back up to $105 despite there being no active war ongoing. Essentially back at levels before the ceasefire started.
And it will only go in one direction for as long as the Strait remains closed.
I think Trump will do anything to resolve it before the World Cup......
Yes, they will want the World Cup winning captain to present Trump with the FIFA Peaciest Peace Prize of all Peace Prizes once the nonsense of the World Cup trophy presentation has been done so the stadium can see what they really came for.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
I tend to agree but it is the case that our tax rates, high though they seem, are still somewhat below the European average. Such tax increases would do horrible things to demand and that in itself would reduce growth, almost certainly make it negative, which would make the debt burden even higher.
I think it would be a combination of some increased taxes and cuts but how a Labour government delivers that remains a mystery.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
Entirely baffled as to why we aren’t doing a massive push to reform the Refugee Convention, or else just abandoning it entirely.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
Infuriating.
I can't think of many countries that are happy with the status quo, so it is baffling that there hasn't been a multilateral move to do something about this.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Oil prices back up to $105 despite there being no active war ongoing. Essentially back at levels before the ceasefire started.
And it will only go in one direction for as long as the Strait remains closed.
I think Trump will do anything to resolve it before the World Cup......
Yes, they will want the World Cup winning captain to present Trump with the FIFA Peaciest Peace Prize of all Peace Prizes once the nonsense of the World Cup trophy presentation has been done so the stadium can see what they really came for.
The back up plan, of course, is if the war is still ongoing then Trump can still get the inaugural FIFA Climate Change award for reducing global oil and gas consumption by the GREATEST numbers of ALL TIME.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
Entirely baffled as to why we aren’t doing a massive push to reform the Refugee Convention, or else just abandoning it entirely.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
Infuriating.
I can't think of many countries that are happy with the status quo, so it is baffling that there hasn't been a multilateral move to do something about this.
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
I thought that the betting markets probably had a lot of insider knowledge that was not available to the public and so might give a better idea of what was likely to happen*. I am not sure when but I think it was about 2008. Certainly a long time ago.
* On balance, this theory has not been vindicated.
Have a look at Kalshi and betting on Trump tweets (i.e. US policy for the next 12 hours) if you still want such an angle confirmed.....
The key with the Trump administration is to buy or sell into the market an hour or two before Trump produces his latest nonsense. The level of insider trading for those connected to Trump is frankly outrageous.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
I also have to say I’m very skeptical that Starmer will voluntarily go after May. If the Cabinet/PLP force the matter, yes. But if he’d genuinely resolved to go he would have resigned before now. PMs very rarely relinquish the post voluntarily, and nothing in Starmer’s demeanour makes me think he’s planning anything of the sort.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
Would the rate not collapse if we rsn a balanced budget? Ultimate safe country. Or is even a solvent UK a dodgy option given global conditions.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
Yes, you'd expect the rate to go down by a lot if a Chancellor was able to pass the many unpopular measures required to balance the budget. There'd be a serious increase in fiscal credibility as a result. And then we'd likely be in a virtuous cycle of increased credibility leading to lower borrowing costs, reducing the debt interest bill, further improving the fiscal balance.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
Yep. I think DavidL is wrong about the need for the surplus; as long as we’re the best option then we’re good in terms of borrowing costs.
Running a surplus would be lovely for my generation though, so by all means…
I think we could do with running a surplus because there has been so much money borrowed following the financial crash and the pandemic. If some of that can be paid back then the country will be much better placed when Avian Flu starts spreading easily between humans, or some other crisis occurs.
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
I thought that the betting markets probably had a lot of insider knowledge that was not available to the public and so might give a better idea of what was likely to happen*. I am not sure when but I think it was about 2008. Certainly a long time ago.
* On balance, this theory has not been vindicated.
Have a look at Kalshi and betting on Trump tweets (i.e. US policy for the next 12 hours) if you still want such an angle confirmed.....
The key with the Trump administration is to buy or sell into the market an hour or two before Trump produces his latest nonsense. The level of insider trading for those connected to Trump is frankly outrageous.
Kushner made a billion in the first presidency. The question on how much the Trump family will make out of this one is, is it going to be in the tens of, or hundreds, of billions.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
I will point out that I've said since July 2024 that Labour should have put 3p on income tax as soon as they got elected. We wouldn't have the current mess if they had...
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
Part of the problem is that Britain has a large stock of debt that continues to need to be refinanced. Even were a government able to cut the deficit to zero, if the interest rate on new bonds stays above 5%, then the debt interest bill will grow substantially, requiring further measures to balance the budget.
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
How do they do it? Everything seems sluggish and anaemic, and there's so many calls on the public purse.
Lots of ideas are bandied around on here, but the main thing is that they have to convince the voters that it's necessary. The pattern in recent budget speeches is to reel off a set of numbers of eye-watering sums of money to be borrowed, to claim that everything will be fine in five years time (but it never is) and then say that because the Chancellor is running things so well, they can afford to spend more money on the favoured interest group du jour.
So it would help if they were a bit more honest about the precarious fiscal situation Britain was in. It's hard for Labour to do that, because they weren't honest in opposition about how hard it would be to turn things around. It's hard for the Tories to do it, because they were in government for 14 years and bequeathed this situation to Labour, with huge national insurance tax cuts to demonstrate how deeply in denial they were. Reform don't want to do it, because they want to persuade everyone they will be able to spend more on their favoured interest groups while cutting taxes. The Greens don't want to do it because they want to persuade everyone that they will be able to spend a lot more with only some people paying higher taxes.
So that leaves the Lib Dems. I don't know why they aren't doing it. I guess they rather like the experience of having more than a dozen MPs, and don't want to be wiped out again at the next election by trying to tell the public the truth.
There is no fiscal prudence party, let alone two flavours of fiscal prudence parties so that we can choose what variety of fiscal prudence we favour.
This is typically where the Conservatives would dive in but no spending-based fiscal prudence is credible without abolishing the triple lock and freezing health spending.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
I don’t treat that as gospel. It’s very easy to row back from that kind of pronouncement.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
You can get to 43–44% of GDP in tax. Plenty of countries sit there. The small detail is they didn’t do it by whacking on an extra ~£130bn in one go.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
I also have to say I’m very skeptical that Starmer will voluntarily go after May. If the Cabinet/PLP force the matter, yes. But if he’d genuinely resolved to go he would have resigned before now. PMs very rarely relinquish the post voluntarily, and nothing in Starmer’s demeanour makes me think he’s planning anything of the sort.
I also have to say I’m very skeptical that Starmer will voluntarily go after May. If the Cabinet/PLP force the matter, yes. But if he’d genuinely resolved to go he would have resigned before now. PMs very rarely relinquish the post voluntarily, and nothing in Starmer’s demeanour makes me think he’s planning anything of the sort.
But he hadn't lost the Cabinet until now.
As I say, if the Cabinet tell him to go he will go. But I don’t believe he will fall on his sword without others forcing his hand.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
I don’t treat that as gospel. It’s very easy to row back from that kind of pronouncement.
He's looked really tired on his latest media rounds though, don't think he has it in him for **another** leadership bid.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
Entirely baffled as to why we aren’t doing a massive push to reform the Refugee Convention, or else just abandoning it entirely.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
Infuriating.
I can't think of many countries that are happy with the status quo, so it is baffling that there hasn't been a multilateral move to do something about this.
I am pleased to share that Leeds University have made available the Refectory in which so many top bands played iconic gigs booked by our Andrew. (And before) We will now be holding his memorial there with special guest musicians ahead of his funeral in Leeds. Details to follow.
Three migrants, who illegally entered Britain on small boats, have been convicted of gang raping a woman on Brighton beach.
Iranian-born Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptians Karin Al-Danasurt, 20, and Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, attacked the woman in the early hours of October 4 last year.
Well, that should be the end of their asylum applications. I'm by no means unsympathetic to asylum seekers, but that's one hell of a blot all over their applications.
Three failed asylum seekers who came over on a small boat raped a drunk woman on Brighton beach while spitting on her, laughing, & filming it…
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
Entirely baffled as to why we aren’t doing a massive push to reform the Refugee Convention, or else just abandoning it entirely.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
Infuriating.
I can't think of many countries that are happy with the status quo, so it is baffling that there hasn't been a multilateral move to do something about this.
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
Who could have predicted What.Three.Words was a load of shite?
It’s not shite. It’s a good app. Just no way to monetise it
If its use became widespread, you could charge people to change the words of their location, like a personalised numberplate.
That was very much the business model: get corporates to get vanity codes for their headquarters. So, Amazon would be at the.everything.store, etc.
Unfortunately, that required lots of people to use the three word codes. Which simply hasn't happened.
I suspect the 3m x 3m named squares mean that most corporates could probably already choose a cool what3words on their HQ site. I am not going to give away the location of our self-build house but I could pick a what3words from our drive that is really appropriate - first word: building, the other two go nicely with it.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
It’s almost like the Labour rulebook is designed to make removing a leader as painful and drawn-out as possible.
Not as difficult as for Reform, apparently.
It can and should be hard, but shouldn't be impossibly hard - at some point if you have enough MPs they will want to be able to remove you if they have to, and cutting them out in some way will only store up resentment.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
The level of taxation as a proportion of GDP is a bit of a red herring.
For example, if healthcare was not funded through taxation, it would be funded via compulsory insurance (paid by employers or individuals). Taxation falls, but healthcare spending per capita remains unchanged. Via something you have to pay. And so is functionally identical to a tax. There's no change to disposable income.
We should be looking at how efficient sectors like healthcare, education etc are in aggregate versus peers and trying to improve them rather than trying to shift from one accounting column to another.
Welfare I accept has different trade offs that are not purely economic. But a similar analogy can be found between welfare versus charity for things we think people shouldn't do without.
I also have to say I’m very skeptical that Starmer will voluntarily go after May. If the Cabinet/PLP force the matter, yes. But if he’d genuinely resolved to go he would have resigned before now. PMs very rarely relinquish the post voluntarily, and nothing in Starmer’s demeanour makes me think he’s planning anything of the sort.
But he hadn't lost the Cabinet until now.
I suspect there is a hell of a lot of "well if you make me chancellor then I will give you a free run at the top job" conversations going on.
Could well end up being hilarious if a total outsider like Al Cairns somehow snatches the crown.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
I don’t treat that as gospel. It’s very easy to row back from that kind of pronouncement.
He's looked really tired on his latest media rounds though, don't think he has it in him for **another** leadership bid.
Maybe. I could very much see him as the unity candidate though, depending on the field. We can’t ignore the fact he is very well thought of across the Labour Party, whereas others appeal more to certain parts of it.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
Even if you were correct about Blair - which given he had annoucned his departure already is at best arguable - George Lansbury was forced out by a vote, and Ramsay Macdonald expelled from the party altogether. I appreciate both were some time ago, but you did say 'in history.'
Not sure if you would count Henderson losing his seat as well.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
It’s almost like the Labour rulebook is designed to make removing a leader as painful and drawn-out as possible.
Not as difficult as for Reform, apparently.
It can and should be hard, but shouldn't be impossibly hard - at some point if you have enough MPs they will want to be able to remove you if they have to, and cutting them out in some way will only store up resentment.
letters to the 1922 committee vs... Labour require you to have a challenger, a nomination threshold from MPs, and then win a ballot of the membership (and affiliates) under OMOV.
In other words, it’s not just “write a few letters and sharpen the knives”. You need an organised alternative, enough MPs willing to go on record, and then you still have to get it past a membership that may have very different instincts to the PLP.
Which is why Labour leadership removals tend to be slow, messy, and only happen when it’s already completely untenable.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
He really should rule himself out. He has been rejected by the voters in a General Election. Seems wrong for him to get into Downing Street regardless. I can see him being no more popular than Starmer.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
I don’t treat that as gospel. It’s very easy to row back from that kind of pronouncement.
He's looked really tired on his latest media rounds though, don't think he has it in him for **another** leadership bid.
Maybe. I could very much see him as the unity candidate though, depending on the field. We can’t ignore the fact he is very well thought of across the Labour Party, whereas others appeal more to certain parts of it.
my understanding (layperson alert) is that he's more likely to throw his weight behind Rayner...
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
I don’t treat that as gospel. It’s very easy to row back from that kind of pronouncement.
He's looked really tired on his latest media rounds though, don't think he has it in him for **another** leadership bid.
Maybe. I could very much see him as the unity candidate though, depending on the field. We can’t ignore the fact he is very well thought of across the Labour Party, whereas others appeal more to certain parts of it.
I could imagine plenty of Labour MPs looking at Rayner, then Streeting, and then cornering Miliband to try and twist his arm into taking on the job.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
PMs need to tough it out more.
less than 2 years less than 2 years less than 50 days just over 3 years just over 3 years
Is a pretty embarrassing return consider there were two with solid majorities in there. At least Rishi can accept that the public thought he was crap and kicked him out.
The Cabinet have so I understand completely lost confidence in him. They are helping to give him an out.
I now think it won’t be Burnham (at least this time around), however I think he will be into Parliament by the end of this year.
Reportedly the Cabinet united to stop Starmer from joining in to bomb Iran. It was said they were led into that by Miliband. So it's quite possible that Miliband is the Kingmaker.
Are we about to see Rayner as PM and Miliband as Chancellor?
How many times a day is Rayner pressuring/asking for an update from HMRC?
I think Miliband is value for the very reason that the Rayner/HMRC thing still hangs over her.
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
Hasn't he already ruled himself out?
He really should rule himself out. He has been rejected by the voters in a General Election. Seems wrong for him to get into Downing Street regardless. I can see him being no more popular than Starmer.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
You can get to 43–44% of GDP in tax. Plenty of countries sit there. The small detail is they didn’t do it by whacking on an extra ~£130bn in one go.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
'In practice' you have no idea what would happen because it's not been tried. Too much tired thinking on here that equates to "more tax - bad". If you want to cut the deficit forget 'efficiency' savings, forget cutting health, public services or benefits, the only way is more taxes.
Yes, you'd expect the rate to go down by a lot if a Chancellor was able to pass the many unpopular measures required to balance the budget. There'd be a serious increase in fiscal credibility as a result. And then we'd likely be in a virtuous cycle of increased credibility leading to lower borrowing costs, reducing the debt interest bill, further improving the fiscal balance.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
I rarely take umbrage with other contributors but I'm calling you out on your pop at me from this morning.
I don't like discrimination but it exists and pretending somehow it doesn't and never has is naive.
The other side of this in terms of property is to ask whether any landlord or property owner has the right to say who they have in their property. There's a fair point if this were public property, any discrimination would be unreasonable but when it's a private tenancy, does not the landlord/owner have the right to refuse to rent to someone with whom he or she would prefer not to deal?
The question then becomes as to the basis of discrimination and whether it is implicit or explicit.
I'd prefer there to be no discrimination and for there to be much greater tolerance of all religions but you can't create tolerance via intolerance - the best hope is education but even that isn't foolproof and as we know, people like people like themselves which in itself makes multi-culturalism problematic at best.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
You can get to 43–44% of GDP in tax. Plenty of countries sit there. The small detail is they didn’t do it by whacking on an extra ~£130bn in one go.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
'In practice' you have no idea what would happen because it's not been tried. Too much tired thinking on here that equates to "more tax - bad". If you want to cut the deficit forget 'efficiency' savings, forget cutting health, public services or benefits, the only way is more taxes.
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
Who could have predicted What.Three.Words was a load of shite?
It’s not shite. It’s a good app. Just no way to monetise it
If its use became widespread, you could charge people to change the words of their location, like a personalised numberplate.
That was very much the business model: get corporates to get vanity codes for their headquarters. So, Amazon would be at the.everything.store, etc.
Unfortunately, that required lots of people to use the three word codes. Which simply hasn't happened.
I suspect the 3m x 3m named squares mean that most corporates could probably already choose a cool what3words on their HQ site. I am not going to give away the location of our self-build house but I could pick a what3words from our drive that is really appropriate - first word: building, the other two go nicely with it.
Comments
The only consequence of Starmer hanging around is that Labour plunge even further into the abyss. He cannot improve the Party whilst he is at the top. He would be more useful in the Lords.
I have listestened to both testimonies and to be honest they are as clear as mud
I reserve judgement on which version is factual, but certainly the consensus is Robbins was sacked unfairly
I would suggest we await next weeks testimony from McSweeney and Philip Barton which may shed even more light on the torturous way the civil service works
Starmer was unwise to contradict Robbins evidence at the dispatch box yesterday, and the opposition parties are seeking the Speaker to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee
I understand Graham Stringer has called for Starmer to resign - now there is an interesting seat for Burnham
Does anyone know if they have a decent number of Senedd Candidates?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cql7wn1k0kgo
(They are a radical right group who were set up by a refugee from UKIP in 2020, and tend to be into exactly what you would expect plus a lot of conspiracy theories.)
Reformers,
We are moving through hostile terrain.
The left-wing press is spreading lies about us.
The so-called right-wing press is doing the same, because it is an arm of the Tory party.
Failed Tories are trying to infiltrate us and destroy our agenda from within.
Hold the line...
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/2046640244645081108
Given the quotes for the full scale nextgen AWACs are $700 million and up - you can buy a small satellite constellation for the price of one plane.
If the rumours of one particular demo/pitch are true, it’s an obvious choice
The country has to work hard against the gravity of the size of the existing debt burden.
Any new chancellor who replaces Rachel Reeves will have to work very hard to establish market confidence. It's a matter of tens of billions of pounds a year in extra debt interest in the long-term riding on it.
The NYT is not exactly friendly to the Democrats.
I had a chat to some academics at Strathclyde, other units and they were quite compelling that the only reason we can borrow at 5% is because there aren’t any other options for investors. Is there an opportunity there to soak up lots of cheap credit if we just get a handle on things?
"Jewish man called 'baby killer' in antisemitic attack"
One every day now.
* Just to remind everyone I voted for the wrong Milliband back in 2010.
Was it really wise for Keir Starmer to kick Whitehall as hard as he has?
At this point, readers could be forgiven for failing to follow every nuance of the latest select committee with a top official on the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. We’ve been at it for days. We didn’t learn a huge amount. It’s sunny outside.
As it happens, some things that cabinet office permanent secretary, Cat Little, said were helpful to Keir Starmer, some were unhelpful to Olly Robbins and some were interesting but fall into neither category.
But this was an unusual appearance by a top official before the foreign affairs select committee, for officials from other than the sponsoring department rarely appear before a committee. It came only because of Number 10 wanted it to happen.
By why?
This was an act that dragged the Robbins-Mandelson-Starmer saga into its seventh consecutive day - a row in which Starmer has been fighting another mandarin over matters of process and procedure.
Olly Robbins is concerned for his reputation in Whitehall and his ability to get another job - but his public reputation does not really matter one bit.
But Starmer still could fall yet further in the eyes of the public - and given it wasn’t an unambiguous win simply keeping the issue in the headlines is a loss.
This is also a disastrous signal for the wider civil service. Officials feel like they are pushed into taking sides. Some now mistrust the prime minister.
Whitehall, for better or worse, is the only engine room a prime minister has had - so is it really wise to kick it as hard as he has?
… and it gets worse
Beach gang-rape migrant was on the run for murder in homeland
https://x.com/cjsnowdon/status/2047353176366465415?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Then I went away
Now I'm back
The US is already worrying about that, the E3s won't be flying much longer, and the E7 hasn't been procured in realistic numbers.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
One gig and retire with an eight-figure bank balance.
You don’t just get a few twitchy MPs and a bad set of results and suddenly it’s over. It takes a full-blown, undeniable crisis plus organisation, numbers, and someone willing to actually wield the knife. Even then it tends to drag.
Blair only went after a decade in power and a very deliberate, coordinated effort. That’s the exception people keep citing, which tells you how rare it is.
So yes, if Starmer were leading the Tories he’d probably have been measured for the curtains already. In Labour, unless things get properly catastrophic, the system defaults to inertia.
Instead there's a decent chance of some form of fuel/energy subsidy later this year.
As it happens, some things that cabinet office permanent secretary, Cat Little, said were helpful to Keir Starmer, some were unhelpful to Olly Robbins and some were interesting but fall into neither category.
That sounds like a win for the PM. Not necessarily a free win, but a win. The media pack aren't the Canadian Mounties, there's no reason to think they always get their man.
https://x.com/hoffman_noa/status/2046927546067919215
* On balance, this theory has not been vindicated.
IWe could still have a really generous programme lifting orphans from refugee camps. From Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Palestine. We could look after more at lower cost, because a lower proportion would end up as the most appalling criminals.
Infuriating.
Conclusion: the Cabinet don't want to pull the plug yet, because they are not confident that they will like what happens next. So we all wobble on.
I guess it's the present situation where, because recent Chancellors have failed to get ahead of things (with the stupid balance the budget in year five rule), that they're actually having to work hard just to keep still.
I suppose there might be some long term doubts about the UK's fiscal health until there was long term evidence that the economy was strong enough to cope with the demographic headwinds, and that fiscal prudence politics would survive general elections.
For different reasons
But in this case, given @BatteryCorrectHorse's connections, I'd skew that way...
However, this is a market of which I'm steering clear
Once a leadership race is confirmed, I'll be back in,
Running a surplus would be lovely for my generation though, so by all means…
Unfortunately, that required lots of people to use the three word codes. Which simply hasn't happened.
And it will only go in one direction for as long as the Strait remains closed.
So it would help if they were a bit more honest about the precarious fiscal situation Britain was in. It's hard for Labour to do that, because they weren't honest in opposition about how hard it would be to turn things around. It's hard for the Tories to do it, because they were in government for 14 years and bequeathed this situation to Labour, with huge national insurance tax cuts to demonstrate how deeply in denial they were. Reform don't want to do it, because they want to persuade everyone they will be able to spend more on their favoured interest groups while cutting taxes. The Greens don't want to do it because they want to persuade everyone that they will be able to spend a lot more with only some people paying higher taxes.
So that leaves the Lib Dems. I don't know why they aren't doing it. I guess they rather like the experience of having more than a dozen MPs, and don't want to be wiped out again at the next election by trying to tell the public the truth.
There is no fiscal prudence party, let alone two flavours of fiscal prudence parties so that we can choose what variety of fiscal prudence we favour.
https://x.com/niohberg/status/2047382776467358085
I think it would be a combination of some increased taxes and cuts but how a Labour government delivers that remains a mystery.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Feels like @patrickkmaguire has come out for Andy Burnham: the "consensus taking shape" is for a new PM in autumn
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2047385228335886716
That doesn’t preclude her from playing kingmaker/coming back as Deputy PM + a great office though
https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Lettera_aperta_22052025.pdf
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
And their voters are pensioners.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
Liz Kershaw
@LizKershawDJ
I am pleased to share that Leeds University have made available the Refectory in which so many top bands played iconic gigs booked by our Andrew. (And before) We will now be holding his memorial there with special guest musicians ahead of his funeral in Leeds. Details to follow.
https://x.com/LizKershawDJ/status/2047350971869675966
It can and should be hard, but shouldn't be impossibly hard - at some point if you have enough MPs they will want to be able to remove you if they have to, and cutting them out in some way will only store up resentment.
For example, if healthcare was not funded through taxation, it would be funded via compulsory insurance (paid by employers or individuals). Taxation falls, but healthcare spending per capita remains unchanged. Via something you have to pay. And so is functionally identical to a tax. There's no change to disposable income.
We should be looking at how efficient sectors like healthcare, education etc are in aggregate versus peers and trying to improve them rather than trying to shift from one accounting column to another.
Welfare I accept has different trade offs that are not purely economic. But a similar analogy can be found between welfare versus charity for things we think people shouldn't do without.
Could well end up being hilarious if a total outsider like Al Cairns somehow snatches the crown.
Not sure if you would count Henderson losing his seat as well.
Labour require you to have a challenger, a nomination threshold from MPs, and then win a ballot of the membership (and affiliates) under OMOV.
In other words, it’s not just “write a few letters and sharpen the knives”. You need an organised alternative, enough MPs willing to go on record, and then you still have to get it past a membership that may have very different instincts to the PLP.
Which is why Labour leadership removals tend to be slow, messy, and only happen when it’s already completely untenable.
By design.
Zack Polanski said there is no evidence that illegal migrants are sexually assaulting women.
Today, 3 boat migrants were convicted of gang-raping a woman on a beach in Brighton.
They were staying in a nearby hotel provided by the Home Office. He owes the public an apology.
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2047387437261791526?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I don't like discrimination but it exists and pretending somehow it doesn't and never has is naive.
The other side of this in terms of property is to ask whether any landlord or property owner has the right to say who they have in their property. There's a fair point if this were public property, any discrimination would be unreasonable but when it's a private tenancy, does not the landlord/owner have the right to refuse to rent to someone with whom he or she would prefer not to deal?
The question then becomes as to the basis of discrimination and whether it is implicit or explicit.
I'd prefer there to be no discrimination and for there to be much greater tolerance of all religions but you can't create tolerance via intolerance - the best hope is education but even that isn't foolproof and as we know, people like people like themselves which in itself makes multi-culturalism problematic at best.
Stand in a GE on that platform.
Good luck
We are going to run out of room at the Cenotaph for Rememebrence Sunday at this rate, more ex-PMs than soldiers.