Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That all sounds good, apart from the bit about Burnham.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
The way I think about it is that I self-identify as a good man that women are safe to be around, but how are women to know that they can take me at my word?
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
I'm curious to know if Cyclefree's awful experience was before or after she was married. It would be perfectly understandable if such a crime meant you wanted nothing to do with men ever again. But I suspect lots of women go on to get married after being the victim of sexual assault or even rape.
I have had quite a few assaults starting at the age of 12 in the loos at Swiss Cottage library when a grown man indecently exposed himself and went on to masturbate.
Yes - I got married long after these assaults because I met a wonderful man with whom I fell in love. I very determinedly put the rape out of my mind because I felt shame and guilt and fear. I said nothing. Why? Protecting my family is one answer. Protecting myself from a painful legal process was another. I chose to forget and walk away rather than confront the perpetrator. Was that cowardly? Perhaps. I did not want to be a victim. Not denial of what happened, but denial of its power – its importance in shaping my life, my character, my choices. This happened to me. But it was not me. I would decide what events would define my life.
I speak about it now because it helps inform my views on the importance of boundaries and because silence aids the perpetrators and it is important to understand how widespread this is.
I am very sorry for you've gone through. And, I obviously agree that men are much more likely to be terrible people than women. But, I'm not sure why you think other men somehow have any responsibility for changing this. It presupposes that these men are randomly distributed throughout society. I suspect they are not.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there. Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
Self-sorting effects in friendship groups means that the proportion of men who are happy to sexually assault women may be much higher than you realise.
Studies that ask young men whether they have engaged in sexually coercive behaviour (without explicitly calling it out as rape or sexual assault) typically find that ~3-4% of young men admit to outright rape & an additional 6% to sexual assault.
The majority of these young men have misogynistic beliefs towards women in general. Some of them are probably sociopaths. It’s unlikely that the explicitly mysogynistic would have stayed in your friend groups - they would have self-selected into groups that affirmed their beliefs. Others would have hidden their beliefs for the sake of social acceptance.
This is the world women, especially young women have to navigate: one in which the majority of men are never going to be a threat, but amongst them hide 3% who are happy to admit that they will rape women given an opportunity. Plus more who will grab aby chance to “cop a feel” if they think they can get away with it.
If you had to exist in that world, how would you feel about it?
'Meta will cut thousands of jobs next month as it spends more than ever on artificial intelligence (AI) projects.
The company told employees in a memo on Thursday that it planned to cut 10% of its workforce - roughly 8,000 staff. It said it would also not fill thousands more open jobs it had been hiring for.
A key reason for the layoffs is Meta's increased spending in other areas of the company, including AI, for which it will this year spend $135bn (£100bn). This is roughly equal to the amount it has spent on AI in the previous three years combined, according to a person who viewed the memo.'
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
It's impossible to know for sure, given the underreporting of rape and sexual assault (as Cyclefree herself notes).
My own (utter) guess is somewhere between 1% and 15% are potential risks to women at some time in their lives.
The upper number comes from the crime stats (around a third of men have criminal records, and about a fifth of reported crime can be categorised as offences against the person - so around 6-7% of men have been convicted of some form of violence, and if you assume sex crimes are greatly underreported...). The lower number from my observation that there was at least one complete thug in every class I was ever in at school...
And around one in four or five women surveyed say they have experienced some form of sexual assault at some time in their lives, which suggests that my lower number is much too low.
(Firemen make up around 0.1% of the adult male population, incidentally.)
'India has dismissed as “uninformed” comments shared by President Trump that described the country as a hellhole, saying they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the strong relationship between the two countries.
The remarks were made by the conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation radio show, in reference to immigrants into the US. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.
“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors,” he added.
India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments, saying they were “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste.”
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
The way I think about it is that I self-identify as a good man that women are safe to be around, but how are women to know that they can take me at my word?
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
I'm curious to know if Cyclefree's awful experience was before or after she was married. It would be perfectly understandable if such a crime meant you wanted nothing to do with men ever again. But I suspect lots of women go on to get married after being the victim of sexual assault or even rape.
I have had quite a few assaults starting at the age of 12 in the loos at Swiss Cottage library when a grown man indecently exposed himself and went on to masturbate.
Yes - I got married long after these assaults because I met a wonderful man with whom I fell in love. I very determinedly put the rape out of my mind because I felt shame and guilt and fear. I said nothing. Why? Protecting my family is one answer. Protecting myself from a painful legal process was another. I chose to forget and walk away rather than confront the perpetrator. Was that cowardly? Perhaps. I did not want to be a victim. Not denial of what happened, but denial of its power – its importance in shaping my life, my character, my choices. This happened to me. But it was not me. I would decide what events would define my life.
I speak about it now because it helps inform my views on the importance of boundaries and because silence aids the perpetrators and it is important to understand how widespread this is.
I am very sorry for you've gone through. And, I obviously agree that men are much more likely to be terrible people than women. But, I'm not sure why you think other men somehow have any responsibility for changing this. It presupposes that these men are randomly distributed throughout society. I suspect they are not.
On the whole, men who are kind to asylum seekers, trans people etc will also respect women. Those people also have to accept not everyone is as good as they are and bad people need to be dealt with. But fundamentally they aren't the problem. The bad people are the problem.
The Greens are hammering the Lib Dem vote, yesterday at Newquay another glaring example. I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems showing net LOSSES next month and the opening for a leadership challenge. Presume it will be Daisy Cooper, certainly more charismatic.
It would serve them right if this happened.
The Lib Dem’s love bombing the Greens simply says vote Green.
The Greens are hammering the Lib Dem vote, yesterday at Newquay another glaring example. I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems showing net LOSSES next month and the opening for a leadership challenge. Presume it will be Daisy Cooper, certainly more charismatic.
It would serve them right if this happened.
The Lib Dem’s love bombing the Greens simply says vote Green.
Agreed. When they were a protest party, a vote for them signalled support for action on combat change and environmental issues.
Given their current leadership, and position in the polls, they are offering a Corbyn style agenda with green branding, with the possibility of at least a share in power at Westminster. That's not something LibDems should be encouraging.
The Greens are hammering the Lib Dem vote, yesterday at Newquay another glaring example. I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems showing net LOSSES next month and the opening for a leadership challenge. Presume it will be Daisy Cooper, certainly more charismatic.
That Newquay seat was a Reform hold.
The Greens are also completely irrelevant in most LD held seats which are in the wealthiest parts of southern England and where the LDs only won in 2024 with gains from Tory voters and with the split on the right between the Tories and Reform.
Davey has won more MPs than any Liberal leader since Lloyd George, the idea Daisy George would do any better is laughable
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
It may be a case of "let the chips fall where they may". Burnham is given a few months to convince an MP in a safe-ish seat who is fed up with parliament to stand down and then Burnham goes on to win the seat. If he does, he'll be odds on to be next PM; if he doesn't it will be someone else but he got his chance.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Depends on what actually happens in May, if Labour are at least second on votes and NEV then I expect Starmer will survive and it will be Kemi going not him
Weren't they supposed to publish all the Epstein files ?
US officials stalling UK criminal investigation into Mandelson - report Good morning. The UK criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson has reportedly ground to a halt after the US justice department refused to hand over evidence contained in the Epstein files.
The documents relate to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which Scotland Yard believes could hold key evidence related to Mandelson, who served as business secretary and US ambassador. While the Met has asked for voluntary disclosure, the US department of justice is insisting on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request, a legal back and forth between countries to obtain evidence, the Telegraph has reported... (which could take a year or more) (Guardian)
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Depends on what actually happens in May, if Labour are at least second on votes and NEV then I expect Starmer will survive and it will be Kemi going not him
You really have a problem with Kemi
She is going nowhere
Cleverly would have been leader if he hadn't been too clever by half and shot himself in the foot
Next conservative candidate for London mayor nailed on
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
Weren't they supposed to publish all the Epstein files ?
US officials stalling UK criminal investigation into Mandelson - report Good morning. The UK criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson has reportedly ground to a halt after the US justice department refused to hand over evidence contained in the Epstein files.
The documents relate to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which Scotland Yard believes could hold key evidence related to Mandelson, who served as business secretary and US ambassador. While the Met has asked for voluntary disclosure, the US department of justice is insisting on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request, a legal back and forth between countries to obtain evidence, the Telegraph has reported... (which could take a year or more) (Guardian)
My view is that he'll keep Iran on the boil to keep Epstein off the news. At the same time, they/Comer will be working to get a Maxwell pardon in place to protect the high-profile people involved in this. Once pardoned, the collective memory will fail.
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
It may be a case of "let the chips fall where they may". Burnham is given a few months to convince an MP in a safe-ish seat who is fed up with parliament to stand down and then Burnham goes on to win the seat. If he does, he'll be odds on to be next PM; if he doesn't it will be someone else but he got his chance.
Even if all the chips land and an MP in a "safe" seat can be persuaded to take the Chiltern Hundreds, then we still end up with a 6 ish week process to get him over the by election finish line, assuming Reform/Greens don't throw a spanner in the works and take the seat. And if rumours are true and SKS is going to resign after the locals, then at the point that the nominations open, Burnham would be ineligible. Unless the Labour Party organised both contests in his favour, which would be... odd.
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
It’s all a bit “Sunak will save us” after Johnson for me.
But I’ve stuck £50 on him.
I feel like Burnham would be the closest we have yet come to Alan Partridge as PM. Better than starmer at politics, but not all that much.
@BatteryCorrectHorse is close to the labour leadership and is worth listening to
I would just say that Starmer announcing his resignation, but carrying on for months waiting for Burnham would raise the question why would any cabinet minister or the civil service do anything to govern with such uncertainty including their position in cabinet
This would only work if someone like Graham Stringer announced he was immediately standing down post May elections and a quick by election to see the heir apparent in the house of commons
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
I was told, the other day, that the reason that a company was pulling out of manufacturing in Aberdeen was energy costs. Like most factories in the U.K., 100% on ‘leccy - even the forklifts. So commercial electricity prices are very, very important.
There’s massive negative correlation between energy prices and economic growth.
The first priority of the government is defence. The second priority of the government should be energy prices.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
The crime of murder requires intent to kill or and intent to do serious bodily harm. This of course is rare in motor cases. The fact that someone has been charged means there is some sort of evidence/interpretation of the facts pointing at that possibility. But that is miles away and a long journey from the police station to a murder charge actually appearing on an indictment at a Crown Court trial. It's a high bar at that stage.
It can be used as an encouragement to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Maguire names Andy Burnham as a central figure in this thinking.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
I'll be honest I'm glad I'm raising a girl, the world (Unless you're a Prem footballer) is getting more stacked against boys.
The gender pay gap in the UK is still estimated at 7%.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Depends on what actually happens in May, if Labour are at least second on votes and NEV then I expect Starmer will survive and it will be Kemi going not him
You really have a problem with Kemi
She is going nowhere
Cleverly would have been leader if he hadn't been too clever by half and shot himself in the foot
Next conservative candidate for London mayor nailed on
If the Tories are at least second in May then she won't be going anywhere, if they aren't she may well be going somewhere but not to the LOTO's office anymore
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
I'll be honest I'm glad I'm raising a girl, the world (Unless you're a Prem footballer) is getting more stacked against boys.
The gender pay gap in the UK is still estimated at 7%.
And that doesn't mean what you think it does.
The 'gender pay gap' is a triumph of irrational ideology over numeracy.
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
Yes. The mens rea for murder is an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
I see charge also include driving without insurance, a not uncommon feature in these cases, a "broken windows" issue? If there was more policing resource put into / different attitude to speeding, no insurance and other minor driving offences how many serious RTAs could be avoided? Following someone doing 20 in a 20 on my cycle commute yesterday, 8.30am on a residential street with several schools off it, someone driving a Jaguar SUV overtook both of us, passing the wrong side of a traffic island and sped off at approaching 40mph. I overtook him twice in the next 5 minutes, lights and congestion, respectable looking 60ish male driver but clearly no consideration for the safety of other road users. A few points and increased insurance could improve his driving and prevent something worse happening.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
Yes, but specifically on investment, don't forget that it doesn't matter by itself - it's an input not an output. It is undertaken to raise productivity and hence GDP.
What matters is if GDP is lower, and if there is no persuasive evidence of the latter, the former is of no consequence.
Also, on the point of businesses deciding where to locate, that only applies for businesses which must invest in a single plant to serve a huge continent - there are some of those, but they will be pretty marginal to an economy the size of ours. Our total exports to the EU are only 12-14% of GDP, gently declining for 30 years. Take from that service exports, which amount to around half that total, then focus on only those businesses in manufacturing with big economies of scale, then those that need to make an investment decision, and the effects of Brexit will get lost in the noise. Corporate tax and interest rates will be infinitely more important.
Thanks. The one comment I would make is that investment isn't entirely linked to exports. Product development can be in any country; service companies can decide where to put their offices; you can decide whether to make or buy etc.
I, and almost all economists, would disagree that Brexit didn't result in relatively lower GDP, but we covered that in your previous thread.
I should add a further point. Businesses intending to invest for exports from a European country won't make separate investments for exports that go to the EU and exports of the same product going to the rest of the world. So if 40% of production, say, goes to the EU, 10% to the UK and 50% to RoW including countries in the EU trading zone, it makes sense to base that investment in the EU and not in the UK. That's a change since Brexit.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
Trump seems to have this idea that NATO is the US and a set of minions who are obliged to follow and help his every move.
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
That ignores the much larger difference between statehood and lack of it.
I'm not arguing for Scottish independence, but it's dishonest to pretend they wouldn't exercise more sovereignty as an independent nation with EU membership than they now possess.
Scotland provided the PM and the Chancellor of the UK less than 16 years ago, and had a seat at the UN security council, control of nuclear weapons, access to excellent security services and defence, macroeconomic policy of its currency, and a major direct voice in foreign policy.
The problem is it's voted SNP since and has thus abrogated itself out of UK governance, where its citizens have just the same rights and protections as every other Briton.
In the EU it would have a formal vote as one of a very great number of small countries, and no more.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Depends on what actually happens in May, if Labour are at least second on votes and NEV then I expect Starmer will survive and it will be Kemi going not him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
Trump seems to have this idea that NATO is the US and a set of minions who are obliged to follow and help his every move.
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
Pentagon just told Britain that the Falkland Islands might not be British anymore.
Not because Argentina deserves them. Because Keir Starmer wouldn’t send a warship.
That is where Britain stands today. A nation that once ruled a quarter of the planet, reduced to a country that can have its territories handed to a South American populist as punishment for insufficient loyalty to a man who cannot spell the word alliance.
Trump was invited to meet the King. Full state visit. The works. Red carpet, Buckingham Palace, the ceremonial humiliation of a host nation pretending not to notice that their guest has spent every day since the invitation was extended publicly mocking them. He called the Prime Minister a coward. He called British aircraft carriers toys. He has treated the special relationship like a doormat and wiped his feet on it every single morning before breakfast. And Britain just stood there and took it.
Every time.
His own niece put it better than any analyst ever could. He hates weakness above all else. Not enemies. Weakness. And nothing triggers him faster than a friend who absorbs the punishment and comes back asking for more. Because that is not friendship to him. That is sport.
Starmer still has a phone. He still has a palace on speed dial. And somewhere, buried under layers of diplomatic caution and Foreign Office nervousness, there may still be an actual human being capable of saying enough.
Cancel the visit. Tell the King to stay home. Do not give this man the photograph. Because the moment that picture is taken, he will use it to finish the job.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Depends on what actually happens in May, if Labour are at least second on votes and NEV then I expect Starmer will survive and it will be Kemi going not him
You really have a problem with Kemi
She is going nowhere
Cleverly would have been leader if he hadn't been too clever by half and shot himself in the foot
Next conservative candidate for London mayor nailed on
If the Tories are at least second in May then she won't be going anywhere, if they aren't she may well be going somewhere but not to the LOTO's office anymore
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
The crime of murder requires intent to kill or and intent to do serious bodily harm. This of course is rare in motor cases. The fact that someone has been charged means there is some sort of evidence/interpretation of the facts pointing at that possibility. But that is miles away and a long journey from the police station to a murder charge actually appearing on an indictment at a Crown Court trial. It's a high bar at that stage.
It can be used as an encouragement to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
My inference is that it was perhaps a road rage incident - driver takes objection to cyclist and deliberately mows him down. Which is very different to driving dangerously - no matter how dangerously - and the cyclist being an unfortunate casualty. Even the most dangerous of dangerous drivers aren't setting out to cause harm to other road users.
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
It’s all a bit “Sunak will save us” after Johnson for me.
But I’ve stuck £50 on him.
I feel like Burnham would be the closest we have yet come to Alan Partridge as PM. Better than starmer at politics, but not all that much.
@BatteryCorrectHorse is close to the labour leadership and is worth listening to
I would just say that Starmer announcing his resignation, but carrying on for months waiting for Burnham would raise the question why would any cabinet minister or the civil service do anything to govern with such uncertainty including their position in cabinet
This would only work if someone like Graham Stringer announced he was immediately standing down post May elections and a quick by election to see the heir apparent in the house of commons
I don't doubt that Burnham is the front runner for a good portion of the Labour party, even with the difficulty of getting him back into parliament. It just reinforces how poor the field of candidates are.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
That ignores the much larger difference between statehood and lack of it.
I'm not arguing for Scottish independence, but it's dishonest to pretend they wouldn't exercise more sovereignty as an independent nation with EU membership than they now possess.
Scotland provided the PM and the Chancellor of the UK less than 16 years ago, and had a seat at the UN security council, control of nuclear weapons, access to excellent security services and defence, macroeconomic policy of its currency, and a major direct voice in foreign policy.
The problem is it's voted SNP since and has thus abrogated itself out of UK governance, where its citizens have just the same rights and protections as every other Briton.
In the EU it would have a formal vote as one of a very great number of small countries, and no more.
It's not all dishonest to make this argument.
I am not a supporter of independence, but I was objecting the sleight of hand (accidental or intended) in the bit of the argument which I bolded. You can't simply equate (as algarkirk did) the position of a nation state member of the EU with that of a devolved region of the UK, in terms of sovereignty.
It's perfectly fair to argue that you think independence would disadvantage Scotland, but you can't have the sovereignty argument ("it's a principle") both ways.
(I should make it clear that I respect algarkirk greatly, even when I disagree with him - I just thought this was a poor argument.)
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
Lord Stringer
Past performance does not guarantee future returns - your investment remains at risk If he's the future, name the seat.
I just did. Graham Stringer retires, promoting a by-election in his Blackley seat. Which he's held since 1997...
Blackley and Middleton South could be a bit Reform-y. Burnham wouldn't be nailed on. He'd probably win, but it wouldn't be a cakewalk. And for all he has personal popularity as mayor, I think a lot of this would evaporate straight away if he stood down from the mayoralty to run as an MP.
Nothing positive whatsoever, just absolutely sh!t-scared of Reform.
There was a mention somewhere in yesterdays Guardian, I think, that Labour’s internal analysis is that they can only win back voters toying with the LDs or Greens if they can pitch the elections as a tactical vote against the evils of Reform
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP forces an early contest to frustrate Burnham, it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP pre-empts an early contest it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
I was thinking about this scenario too.
Burnham and Labour will get a small bounce on the basis they got rid of a PM the public hates.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
It isn't a "project".
It's a principle.
Brexiteers aren't putting any effort into making their principle work either, in that case.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP forces an early contest to frustrate Burnham, it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
The crime of murder requires intent to kill or and intent to do serious bodily harm. This of course is rare in motor cases. The fact that someone has been charged means there is some sort of evidence/interpretation of the facts pointing at that possibility. But that is miles away and a long journey from the police station to a murder charge actually appearing on an indictment at a Crown Court trial. It's a high bar at that stage.
It can be used as an encouragement to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
My inference is that it was perhaps a road rage incident - driver takes objection to cyclist and deliberately mows him down. Which is very different to driving dangerously - no matter how dangerously - and the cyclist being an unfortunate casualty. Even the most dangerous of dangerous drivers aren't setting out to cause harm to other road users.
Road rage is a good bet, I think. Since the suspect is of no fixed abode and was driving without insurance I'm presuming they're some kind of bottom feeder, probably drunk or high at the time and decided to mess up that cyclist who got in their way.
YouGov’s MRP projection for London, while bad for Labour, isn’t as catastrophic as the Freedman prediction, and is better for the Greens than Reform
Is that a good thing? Or does it just allow an increasingly London centric Labour party with a London centric media to ignore the kicking they took in Scotland and Wales (and probably Birmingham and the Liverpool-West Yorkshire strip).
'We might have gone from first to third in Wales, but at least we held Barking...'
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP forces an early contest to frustrate Burnham, it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
Murder and manslaughter it says. Bit odd - can't they arrest for murder and, if the evidence won't go that far, charge only manslaughter?
No fixed abode too. Living in his car?
Both are arrestable offences. Arrest and charge are different. Arrest requires a reasonable suspicion that an offence has taken place and any policeman, however lowly, has that right and duty. Charge requires a process at a more senior level, including the CPS, after which a person is brought before a court.
Arrest is fairly rough and ready. It has to be. It happens in the middle of riots and when the copper is being attacked and the suspect is covered in vomit. Charge at the nick is more nuanced but far from final. You only have a finite time before you have to let him go. Indictment at crown court is the CPS's final statement as to what the prosecution says they can prove to the criminal standard.
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
I'll mark you down as a fan, then...
What's his route back to The Commons?
Lord Stringer
Past performance does not guarantee future returns - your investment remains at risk If he's the future, name the seat.
I just did. Graham Stringer retires, promoting a by-election in his Blackley seat. Which he's held since 1997...
As I’ve said I’m on the Burnham train reluctantly.
A Northern MP “who cares about us” is a good start. But he is for controlled immigration?
My inference is that he doesn't consider immigration a problem. But I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Then his initial popularity will only get him so far.
It’s fine to not care about some aspects of the job - Blair didn’t care about things he gave to Brown - but it involves putting somebody in place who does.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP forces an early contest to frustrate Burnham, it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
Possibly. But voting for him so that he can go take Starmer out and force a contest is a more attractive proposition to the disillusioned voter. If Starmer has already agreed to go, Burhnam becomes just another ambitious Labourite eyeing up the big chair, and voters might as well have Cooper or Rayner or Streeting, and go enjoy their protest vote at the by election
'Meta will cut thousands of jobs next month as it spends more than ever on artificial intelligence (AI) projects.
The company told employees in a memo on Thursday that it planned to cut 10% of its workforce - roughly 8,000 staff. It said it would also not fill thousands more open jobs it had been hiring for.
A key reason for the layoffs is Meta's increased spending in other areas of the company, including AI, for which it will this year spend $135bn (£100bn). This is roughly equal to the amount it has spent on AI in the previous three years combined, according to a person who viewed the memo.'
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP pre-empts an early contest it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
I was thinking about this scenario too.
Burnham and Labour will get a small bounce on the basis they got rid of a PM the public hates.
I think that will also apply to any new Labour leader who is seen to take Starmer down against his will, such is his and Reeves' unpopularity.
A messy bloodbath would do Labour no harm. A case of he/she who wields the knife reaps the electoral benefit.
“The focus groups I have seen are like actual gold dust. People say things like ‘he cares about people like us’. Do you know how rare it is to see that about a politician?“
Our read, on the consensus forming around Andy Burnham
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
It isn't a "project".
It's a principle.
Brexiteers aren't putting any effort into making their principle work either, in that case.
It's not about Brexiteers, it's about the British people.
This administration has already chosen to do so by applying VAT to private schools, for example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
Trump seems to have this idea that NATO is the US and a set of minions who are obliged to follow and help his every move.
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
Thing is many would do what the US wanted, but he demands in a way which makes it politically impossible.
The US no longer believes it is helpful, or 35-40% don't. NATO could manage another nation thinking that, but not the US.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
Trump seems to have this idea that NATO is the US and a set of minions who are obliged to follow and help his every move.
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
His God Complex is so pronounced he could be a Doctor. Oh...
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
The crime of murder requires intent to kill or and intent to do serious bodily harm. This of course is rare in motor cases. The fact that someone has been charged means there is some sort of evidence/interpretation of the facts pointing at that possibility. But that is miles away and a long journey from the police station to a murder charge actually appearing on an indictment at a Crown Court trial. It's a high bar at that stage.
It can be used as an encouragement to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
That is unusual,; it is a motor vehicle used deliberately as a weapon, with intent and clear evidence. Death by Dangerous Driving came in partly because juries were reluctant to reach a guilty finding for manslaughter.
I can point to certain similar cases, but they tend to be in underworld or organised crime circles. There was one about 7 miles from here in 2024, where a 23 rear old drug dealer in his Landrover chased down and killed a 24 year old drug distributor who was on a Surron being driven by her boyfriend. They had apparently looked through the window where he was parked up enjoying himself with a girl met at a pub, and it was a "pursuit of anger".
He was cleared of murder at trial, and had pled guilty to causing Death by Dangerous Driving. He got 5 years 3 months in May 2025.
If it was someone who lost their cool and got angry - eg one who drove onto a pavement to run down a cyclist who had sworn at him over a dangerous close pass, that would tend to be manslaughter afaik.
The Tories would bite a hand off for a poll showing them second place in MPs and only 30 or so behind. They'd assume that means a return to no.1 is possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance. Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign. The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina. A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion". Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
Trump seems to have this idea that NATO is the US and a set of minions who are obliged to follow and help his every move.
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
Pentagon just told Britain that the Falkland Islands might not be British anymore.
Not because Argentina deserves them. Because Keir Starmer wouldn’t send a warship.
That is where Britain stands today. A nation that once ruled a quarter of the planet, reduced to a country that can have its territories handed to a South American populist as punishment for insufficient loyalty to a man who cannot spell the word alliance.
Trump was invited to meet the King. Full state visit. The works. Red carpet, Buckingham Palace, the ceremonial humiliation of a host nation pretending not to notice that their guest has spent every day since the invitation was extended publicly mocking them. He called the Prime Minister a coward. He called British aircraft carriers toys. He has treated the special relationship like a doormat and wiped his feet on it every single morning before breakfast. And Britain just stood there and took it.
Every time.
His own niece put it better than any analyst ever could. He hates weakness above all else. Not enemies. Weakness. And nothing triggers him faster than a friend who absorbs the punishment and comes back asking for more. Because that is not friendship to him. That is sport.
Starmer still has a phone. He still has a palace on speed dial. And somewhere, buried under layers of diplomatic caution and Foreign Office nervousness, there may still be an actual human being capable of saying enough.
Cancel the visit. Tell the King to stay home. Do not give this man the photograph. Because the moment that picture is taken, he will use it to finish the job.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
That scenario does have some plausibility, not least because with a contest looming it is now Burnham's only conceivable route to becoming PM, so Burnham will clearly be backing this to happen. I assume that it is Burnham's camp that is pushing the scenario.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may Paywall, but here's the conclusion: "....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
The other aspect is that I reckon Burnham would win a by-election in a reasonably appropriate seat, right now, as he'd be able to harnass both the loyal labour vote and a decent chunk of the disillusioned vote, backing him so that he can go to the palace and slay the king.
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
You are of course right that even if Starmer does play ball and no other MP pre-empts an early contest it is not a given that Burnham would be able to win a by-election. It would require a supportive MP in what (normally) would be a particularly safe seat to be persuaded to retire suddenly in May, there may not be such a seat/MP out there. But I think that if that happened and it was clear that Burnham was standing as part of a process of getting rid of Starmer, then he'd have more support than you think. When Brown became Labour leader he was initially very popular, simply because he'd been seen to engineer the departure of the by then deeply unpopular Blair, who he dragged kicking and screaming to the exit door. The fact that his succession was an engineered coronation mattered little in the public's mind.
I was thinking about this scenario too.
Burnham and Labour will get a small bounce on the basis they got rid of a PM the public hates.
I think that will also apply to any new Labour leader who is seen to take Starmer down against his will, such is his and Reeves' unpopularity.
A messy bloodbath would do Labour no harm. A case of he/she who wields the knife reaps the electoral benefit.
If Labour is seen to be rebooting and starting again they’ll get a fair hearing in my view. Look at what Johnson did.
They can get away with it once. But it has to be decisive.
Burnham is the best choice just entirely on the basis that he is not in the government.
He could win an election. But he could also be more unpopular than Starmer and I can totally see us all sitting here in two years talking about his replacement. I’m now extremely sceptical of anyone running for Labour leader who doesn’t have much to say, learning from Starmer. It only works for so long.
Burnham does have one objective advantage: he does appear to have at least some power base in the PLP.
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
In turn, can we drop Trump's claim to the US and lobby to return it to the indigenous peoples his lot slaughtered?
Interesting that Mr Trump has moved from USA leaving NATO to USA will expel other countries from NATO.
NATO is at best de facto suspended for the moment, and more likely finished already. No-one trusts that they will be defended if attacked.
We need to build stronger alliances with the middle powers.
Agreed, it won't actually go but there's no coming back from this hit.
NATO deterrence always rested on the risk for an adversary of the US answering an Article 5 request being perceived as far greater than it ignoring such a request, since it's never really been put to test in Europe.
That risk calculation has been utterly reversed under Trump, with the prevailing presumption now being that he almost certainly wouldn't answer an Article 5 request - and it's very hard to see how it could be fully switched back even by an incoming Democratic administration.
“The focus groups I have seen are like actual gold dust. People say things like ‘he cares about people like us’. Do you know how rare it is to see that about a politician?“
Our read, on the consensus forming around Andy Burnham
Comments
Get on with your job, lad. In Manchester.
But let's be clear, there will be a Labour leadership election in 2026, whether or not this scenario plays out. The scale of the electoral disaster facing Labour in 2 weeks time will mean that Starmer will either announce a timetable for his departure or face a fairly immediate contest initiated by either a viable candidate or a stalking horse.
Taking your scenario as a given, there are though a lot of routes that could still result in someone other than Burnham becoming PM.
The first is that Starmer may not agree to an "orderly transition" but fights attempts to oust him. See for example today's New Statesman https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/04/would-keir-starmer-agree-to-step-down-after-may
Paywall, but here's the conclusion:
"....what will Starmer think? He could well change his mind about fighting on, or perhaps he could “be made” to change it by the sheer force of a unanimous cabinet and an angry party telling him how it is going to be. But there are still some loyal guards among the cabinet ranks. And for months, Starmer’s closest allies have told me how determined he is to fight on. Something has shifted in the cabinet. But will it shift in Keir Starmer too?"
Second, if Starmer did see the writing on the wall, would he be willing to be a zombie PM for many months in order to give Burnham time to stand? And why is it being assumed that he would back Burnham at all? He might simply announce that he will be standing down as soon as a more immediate leadership contest is concluded in say July, one that Burnham would be frozen out of. The argument against that happening is that Starmer would see that Burnham represents Labour's best chance to a recovery and would act for the good of the party. But remember that this is the man who gave McSweeney carte blanche to turn his leadership into perhaps the most factional of any Labour leader ever (trumping even Corbyn's) so don't hold your breath for a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Third, even if Starmer does play ball with Burnham, others with ambition in the Cabinet may fancy their own chances and take the opportunity to initiate an immediate contest while Burnham is still ineligible to stand. Possibly Sweeting. Of the "triumverate" cited, only Miliband remains in the Cabinet, and I think it a bit fanciful to imagine that a majority of the Cabinet is as yet in favour of a Burnham coronation.
Any one of those three scenarios would in the absence of Burnham force one of Rayner and Miliband to stand too, and possibly both would, with Burnham having to back one as part of a deal, possibly in return for a promised Cabinet seat for a Lord Burnham enabling him to still see out his term as Metro mayor.
Studies that ask young men whether they have engaged in sexually coercive behaviour (without explicitly calling it out as rape or sexual assault) typically find that ~3-4% of young men admit to outright rape & an additional 6% to sexual assault.
This is a typical example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10790632211051682 summarised here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/research-reveals-rapes-and-assaults-admitted-to-by-male-uk-students
The majority of these young men have misogynistic beliefs towards women in general. Some of them are probably sociopaths. It’s unlikely that the explicitly mysogynistic would have stayed in your friend groups - they would have self-selected into groups that affirmed their beliefs. Others would have hidden their beliefs for the sake of social acceptance.
This is the world women, especially young women have to navigate: one in which the majority of men are never going to be a threat, but amongst them hide 3% who are happy to admit that they will rape women given an opportunity. Plus more who will grab aby chance to “cop a feel” if they think they can get away with it.
If you had to exist in that world, how would you feel about it?
I don't think some of you get it. There is a buzz around Manchester. And not just the bees on the buses.
A dynamic, thriving economy led by investment and infrastructure. With a pick yourself up and work ethos, combined with pride in your community.
An awful lot of good that the King of the North can bring to the wider UK.
What's his route back to The Commons?
The company told employees in a memo on Thursday that it planned to cut 10% of its workforce - roughly 8,000 staff. It said it would also not fill thousands more open jobs it had been hiring for.
A key reason for the layoffs is Meta's increased spending in other areas of the company, including AI, for which it will this year spend $135bn (£100bn). This is roughly equal to the amount it has spent on AI in the previous three years combined, according to a person who viewed the memo.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm1y89vek8o
My own (utter) guess is somewhere between 1% and 15% are potential risks to women at some time in their lives.
The upper number comes from the crime stats (around a third of men have criminal records, and about a fifth of reported crime can be categorised as offences against the person - so around 6-7% of men have been convicted of some form of violence, and if you assume sex crimes are greatly underreported...).
The lower number from my observation that there was at least one complete thug in every class I was ever in at school...
And around one in four or five women surveyed say they have experienced some form of sexual assault at some time in their lives, which suggests that my lower number is much too low.
(Firemen make up around 0.1% of the adult male population, incidentally.)
The remarks were made by the conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation radio show, in reference to immigrants into the US. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.
“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors,” he added.
India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments, saying they were “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste.”
China has not yet commented.'
https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-iran/article/iran-war-trump-ceasefire-israel-lebanon-latest-news-9p9p8mzf3
Whether he'd be able to win the same seat as part of a pre-planned stitch-up by Labour's powers that be, so that he can be eased into the big chair with Starmer's effective backing, is another matter entirely. A lot of voters might go back to wanting to send the government a rather different message entirely?
The Lib Dem’s love bombing the Greens simply says vote Green.
If that is his achievement, he needs to up his game.
But I’ve stuck £50 on him.
When they were a protest party, a vote for them signalled support for action on combat change and environmental issues.
Given their current leadership, and position in the polls, they are offering a Corbyn style agenda with green branding, with the possibility of at least a share in power at Westminster. That's not something LibDems should be encouraging.
If he's the future, name the seat.
The Greens are also completely irrelevant in most LD held seats which are in the wealthiest parts of southern England and where the LDs only won in 2024 with gains from Tory voters and with the split on the right between the Tories and Reform.
Davey has won more MPs than any Liberal leader since Lloyd George, the idea Daisy George would do any better is laughable
(Does that imply they think he did it deliberately?)
US officials stalling UK criminal investigation into Mandelson - report
Good morning. The UK criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson has reportedly ground to a halt after the US justice department refused to hand over evidence contained in the Epstein files.
The documents relate to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which Scotland Yard believes could hold key evidence related to Mandelson, who served as business secretary and US ambassador. While the Met has asked for voluntary disclosure, the US department of justice is insisting on a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request, a legal back and forth between countries to obtain evidence, the Telegraph has reported... (which could take a year or more)
(Guardian)
She is going nowhere
Cleverly would have been leader if he hadn't been too clever by half and shot himself in the foot
Next conservative candidate for London mayor nailed on
Call me unconvinced.
And if rumours are true and SKS is going to resign after the locals, then at the point that the nominations open, Burnham would be ineligible.
Unless the Labour Party organised both contests in his favour, which would be... odd.
I would just say that Starmer announcing his resignation, but carrying on for months waiting for Burnham would raise the question why would any cabinet minister or the civil service do anything to govern with such uncertainty including their position in cabinet
This would only work if someone like Graham Stringer announced he was immediately standing down post May elections and a quick by election to see the heir apparent in the house of commons
I do not understand the timidity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz78x703lrvo
Nato says there is no provision for member states to be suspended or expelled from the military alliance after a report said the US could seek to suspend Spain over its Iran war stance.
Reuters quoted a US official who said an internal Pentagon email had suggested measures for the US to punish allies it believed had failed to support its campaign.
The email also suggested reviewing the US position on the UK's claim to the Falklands islands in the south Atlantic, which are also claimed by Argentina.
A Nato official told the BBC that the organisation's founding treaty "does not foresee any provision for suspension of Nato membership, or expulsion".
Spain's leader has also dismissed the report. The BBC has contacted the Pentagon and UK government for comment...
It can be used as an encouragement to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.
So this all came from Andy Burnham then.
If there was more policing resource put into / different attitude to speeding, no insurance and other minor driving offences how many serious RTAs could be avoided?
Following someone doing 20 in a 20 on my cycle commute yesterday, 8.30am on a residential street with several schools off it, someone driving a Jaguar SUV overtook both of us, passing the wrong side of a traffic island and sped off at approaching 40mph. I overtook him twice in the next 5 minutes, lights and congestion, respectable looking 60ish male driver but clearly no consideration for the safety of other road users. A few points and increased insurance could improve his driving and prevent something worse happening.
No fixed abode too. Living in his car?
It's a principle.
Generally you enter the Commons and then spend a decent amount of time as an MP before going for the leadership.
Here it will be a case of within weeks he’s either been coronated or we we see a leadership election with the winner already known .
The optics just don’t look great .
There’s no guarantee Burnham will win any by-election in Manchester and the whole saga could then drag on .
And that simply isn’t the case NATO is mutual defense if you are attacked by someone - and the closest it’s got recently to a NATO member being attacked is Greenland
The problem is it's voted SNP since and has thus abrogated itself out of UK governance, where its citizens have just the same rights and protections as every other Briton.
In the EU it would have a formal vote as one of a very great number of small countries, and no more.
It's not all dishonest to make this argument.
Not because Argentina deserves them. Because Keir Starmer wouldn’t send a warship.
That is where Britain stands today. A nation that once ruled a quarter of the planet, reduced to a country that can have its territories handed to a South American populist as punishment for insufficient loyalty to a man who cannot spell the word alliance.
Trump was invited to meet the King. Full state visit. The works. Red carpet, Buckingham Palace, the ceremonial humiliation of a host nation pretending not to notice that their guest has spent every day since the invitation was extended publicly mocking them. He called the Prime Minister a coward. He called British aircraft carriers toys. He has treated the special relationship like a doormat and wiped his feet on it every single morning before breakfast.
And Britain just stood there and took it.
Every time.
His own niece put it better than any analyst ever could. He hates weakness above all else. Not enemies. Weakness. And nothing triggers him faster than a friend who absorbs the punishment and comes back asking for more. Because that is not friendship to him. That is sport.
Starmer still has a phone. He still has a palace on speed dial. And somewhere, buried under layers of diplomatic caution and Foreign Office nervousness, there may still be an actual human being capable of saying enough.
Cancel the visit. Tell the King to stay home. Do not give this man the photograph. Because the moment that picture is taken, he will use it to finish the job.
Trump does not do gratitude. He does dominance. Britain just volunteered to be the example.
https://x.com/Microinteracti1/status/2047620809787658335
Nothing positive whatsoever, just absolutely sh!t-scared of Reform.
You can't simply equate (as algarkirk did) the position of a nation state member of the EU with that of a devolved region of the UK, in terms of sovereignty.
It's perfectly fair to argue that you think independence would disadvantage Scotland, but you can't have the sovereignty argument ("it's a principle") both ways.
(I should make it clear that I respect algarkirk greatly, even when I disagree with him - I just thought this was a poor argument.)
And for all he has personal popularity as mayor, I think a lot of this would evaporate straight away if he stood down from the mayoralty to run as an MP.
Who will his Chancellor be? Reeves out.
A Northern MP “who cares about us” is a good start. But he is for controlled immigration?
Burnham and Labour will get a small bounce on the basis they got rid of a PM the public hates.
@KevinASchofield
NEW: No10 rejects suggestions Keir Starmer will set out a timetable for his departure in the coming weeks as he comes under pressure to quit.
PM's spokesman says: "He's very focused on the job. He will continue to lead the government throughout this parliament and beyond.
'We might have gone from first to third in Wales, but at least we held Barking...'
Arrest is fairly rough and ready. It has to be. It happens in the middle of riots and when the copper is being attacked and the suspect is covered in vomit. Charge at the nick is more nuanced but far from final. You only have a finite time before you have to let him go. Indictment at crown court is the CPS's final statement as to what the prosecution says they can prove to the criminal standard.
It’s fine to not care about some aspects of the job - Blair didn’t care about things he gave to Brown - but it involves putting somebody in place who does.
He’d be a muppet to sack Mahmood.
Starmer out and force a contest is a more attractive proposition to the disillusioned voter. If Starmer has already agreed to go, Burhnam becomes just another ambitious Labourite eyeing up the big chair, and voters might as well have Cooper or Rayner or Streeting, and go enjoy their protest vote at the by election
@DPJHodges
·
2m
The herd is moving.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2047633712133657077
Sky did say that no government minister would come on this morning
I know its Hodges, but it certainly is plausible with what looks like a nightmare week next week with McSweeney and Sir Philip Barton
A messy bloodbath would do Labour no harm. A case of he/she who wields the knife reaps the electoral benefit.
Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
“The focus groups I have seen are like actual gold dust. People say things like ‘he cares about people like us’. Do you know how rare it is to see that about a politician?“
Our read, on the consensus forming around Andy Burnham
@kiranstacey
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2047615706649260428
This administration has already chosen to do so by applying VAT to private schools, for example.
The US no longer believes it is helpful, or 35-40% don't. NATO could manage another nation thinking that, but not the US.
I can point to certain similar cases, but they tend to be in underworld or organised crime circles. There was one about 7 miles from here in 2024, where a 23 rear old drug dealer in his Landrover chased down and killed a 24 year old drug distributor who was on a Surron being driven by her boyfriend. They had apparently looked through the window where he was parked up enjoying himself with a girl met at a pub, and it was a "pursuit of anger".
He was cleared of murder at trial, and had pled guilty to causing Death by Dangerous Driving. He got 5 years 3 months in May 2025.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ldzg6l91ro
If it was someone who lost their cool and got angry - eg one who drove onto a pavement to run down a cyclist who had sworn at him over a dangerous close pass, that would tend to be manslaughter afaik.
They can get away with it once. But it has to be decisive.
Burnham is the best choice just entirely on the basis that he is not in the government.
He could win an election. But he could also be more unpopular than Starmer and I can totally see us all sitting here in two years talking about his replacement. I’m now extremely sceptical of anyone running for Labour leader who doesn’t have much to say, learning from Starmer. It only works for so long.
Burnham does have one objective advantage: he does appear to have at least some power base in the PLP.
That risk calculation has been utterly reversed under Trump, with the prevailing presumption now being that he almost certainly wouldn't answer an Article 5 request - and it's very hard to see how it could be fully switched back even by an incoming Democratic administration.
He will get a decent boost at the start. But it’ll only take him so far.