Sir Keir Starmer is facing a backlash after he called for a ban on some pro-Palestine protests as part of a crackdown on antisemitism.
The prime minister suggested there were “instances” where it was appropriate to prevent such marches happening on UK streets –as they have done in France – as he said he would fight “with every breath I have” for a diverse and tolerant Britain following a series of attacks on Jewish communities in recent weeks, including the Golders Green terror attack.
Its just posturing. He is a lawyer, who has fought for human rights, right to protest etc, he knows they won't be able to ban these protests without also banning all sorts of other things. At best, perhaps you can put your thumb on the scale in terms of adding extra paperwork to try and reduce regularity. But even phrases like Globalise the Interfada, the police made it clear they are taking an extremely generous interpretation of it.
Since September 2025, under the one in, one out system, and as of 24 April, 561 people have been removed to France after arriving in the UK on small boats, with 551 brought legally to the UK. Just days before these figures were released, 602 asylum seekers arrived on small boats on 18 April, raising questions about the deterrent value of the scheme.
Just a reminder that the ONS population projection assumes 700,000 immigrants per year for the next 10 years - ones that stay to become part of the UK population.
"Airlines can cancel flights in advance over fuel shortages, under new plans"
It makes a lot of sense; if there are going to be serious shortages, frankly the last thing we should be doing with the available resources is burning it so people can go on their holibobs. Most air travel is moderately frivolous - things like power generation and food supply really aren't.
Unless someone has a monopoly they're abusing there shouldn't be a rule that you have to use your slot to keep it in the first place. Just sell it to the highest bidder and let them fill it or not.
"Airlines can cancel flights in advance over fuel shortages, under new plans"
It makes a lot of sense; if there are going to be serious shortages, frankly the last thing we should be doing with the available resources is burning it so people can go on their holibobs. Most air travel is moderately frivolous - things like power generation and food supply really aren't.
Unless someone has a monopoly they're abusing there shouldn't be a rule that you have to use your slot to keep it in the first place. Just sell it to the highest bidder and let them fill it or not.
No way that could be abused to shut out small airlines from lucrative routes. Or is there?
"Airlines can cancel flights in advance over fuel shortages, under new plans"
It makes a lot of sense; if there are going to be serious shortages, frankly the last thing we should be doing with the available resources is burning it so people can go on their holibobs. Most air travel is moderately frivolous - things like power generation and food supply really aren't.
There's lots of evidence that holidays make workers reduce stress, improve mental health and make workers significantly more productive. So travelling is far from frivolous.
Were our prospective politicians always like this and social media just let’s us see it, or has social media encouraged more extreme views and language?
Were our prospective politicians always like this and social media just lets us see it, or has social media encouraged more extreme views and language?
I suspect a mix of both. Churchill would never have got away with his private remarks today, but there is a doom loop of reinforced behaviour as people see others who agree with them.
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
Were our prospective politicians always like this and social media just lets us see it, or has social media encouraged more extreme views and language?
I suspect a mix of both. Churchill would never have got away with his private remarks today, but there is a doom loop of reinforced behaviour as people see others who agree with them.
And unlike edgy remarks in the golf club bar, social media posts are there to be discovered years later by powerful software looking not just at what you've tweeted but at what the posters you've re-tweeted have also tweeted even if you've never seen that.
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
No-one wants the Heseltine role – the sword-wielder who never got to wear the crown.
Were our prospective politicians always like this and social media just lets us see it, or has social media encouraged more extreme views and language?
I suspect a mix of both. Churchill would never have got away with his private remarks today, but there is a doom loop of reinforced behaviour as people see others who agree with them.
And unlike edgy remarks in the golf club bar, social media posts are there to be discovered years later by powerful software looking not just at what you've tweeted but at what the posters you've re-tweeted have also tweeted even if you've never seen that.
It's the subtle toxicity of most social media.
The closed bubble nature of most SM doesn't discourage over-edgy remarks enough. It's a brilliant machine to reward ever-more outrageous comments.
That's not great, but then if those really bad comments escape into the wild, absolutely everyone finds out about them.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
"Airlines can cancel flights in advance over fuel shortages, under new plans"
It makes a lot of sense; if there are going to be serious shortages, frankly the last thing we should be doing with the available resources is burning it so people can go on their holibobs. Most air travel is moderately frivolous - things like power generation and food supply really aren't.
There's lots of evidence that holidays make workers reduce stress, improve mental health and make workers significantly more productive. So travelling is far from frivolous.
I wouldn't disagree with that, and I don't particularly want the idiots intending on jetting off to Magaluf holidaying here instead, but it's a hiracy of needs thing, and cheep weekends on the beach should come a lot further down the list than fuel for everyday life.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That's an issue that goes back decades, though- at least back to Maggie. Mayors and councils haven't been given much discretion over tax and spending, for fear that they would use it.
Whatever the merits of that, it does create a cadre of politicians with an inherently childish attitude to money; if the only way you can fund a project is by nagging Whitehall, it's different to if you have to get the money via taxes with your name on them.
It's a definite problem with the way Mayors have been set up. There was that bloke in London who bombed on the national stage, in part because he had never had to learn about tradeoffs.
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
Burnham polls far better with voters than Rayner, Cooper or Streeting, if he gets back to Parliament of course he would be a serious candidate
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
No-one wants the Heseltine role – the sword-wielder who never got to wear the crown.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That’s not quite true. Manchester is also a private sector success story, it’s not purely a state funded enterprise.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
Burnham polls far better with voters than Rayner, Cooper or Streeting, if he gets back to Parliament of course he would be a serious candidate
But how could he win a by-election ? Where could he stand ? What would his platform be, "vote for me and I will be Prime Minister and ignore you my electors just like XXXX my predecessor has done. I bought him out, what is to say I won't be bought out too ?" If he DID win then he would be a much more formidable opponent for Kemi and Nigel than any of the others, but he won't win. What great gifts has he brought to Manchester ?
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
No-one wants the Heseltine role – the sword-wielder who never got to wear the crown.
Starmer is hardly Thatcher though
He does share one fundamental with Thatcher after 22 months as PM - unpopularity.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That’s not quite true. Manchester is also a private sector success story, it’s not purely a state funded enterprise.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
It's interesting both Manchester and Birmingham city centres have improved immensely over last few decades, but the surrounding areas seem to have stagnated. Burnham gets the benefit for the Manchester improvements but how much is it riding off the coattails of the investment that was already in place?
I actually think Starmer is lucky that opposition to him seems to be coalescing around Burnham, who is (a) not eligible and (b) not really a serious candidate.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
Burnham polls far better with voters than Rayner, Cooper or Streeting, if he gets back to Parliament of course he would be a serious candidate
But how could he win a by-election ? Where could he stand ? What would his platform be, "vote for me and I will be Prime Minister and ignore you my electors just like XXXX my predecessor has done. I bought him out, what is to say I won't be bought out too ?" If he DID win then he would be a much more formidable opponent for Kemi and Nigel than any of the others, but he won't win. What great gifts has he brought to Manchester ?
If I were him I’d start attacking the current Labour hierarchy as a London-only club.
That’s why they’ve not reformed energy pricing or council tax, they’ve not restarted HS2 to Manchester/Liverpool/Sheffield, they’ve not implemented the Bee Network in other cities, no new trams , little investment in buses, the A1 hasn’t been duelled. No levers to spread some economic demand around.
Any northern seat would be interested in that kind of vibe. Some positivity + a grudge.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That’s not quite true. Manchester is also a private sector success story, it’s not purely a state funded enterprise.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
It's interesting both Manchester and Birmingham city centres have improved immensely over last few decades, but the surrounding areas seem to have stagnated. Burnham gets the benefit for the Manchester improvements but how much is it riding off the coattails of the investment that was already in place?
Twas forever thus in politics?
I don’t think the Manchester hinterland has stagnated? It has changed sure as it has become Manchester suburbs but in my experience the development extends far outside the city centre.
Birmingham, although I am from Solihull, I have a lot less familiarity with over the past 15 years.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
Writing a regular column can't be easy, but this guy's specialist subject on Mastermind would be "The Fucking Obvious".
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That’s not quite true. Manchester is also a private sector success story, it’s not purely a state funded enterprise.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
It's interesting both Manchester and Birmingham city centres have improved immensely over last few decades, but the surrounding areas seem to have stagnated. Burnham gets the benefit for the Manchester improvements but how much is it riding off the coattails of the investment that was already in place?
Twas forever thus in politics?
I don’t think the Manchester hinterland has stagnated? It has changed sure as it has become Manchester suburbs but in my experience the development extends far outside the city centre.
Birmingham, although I am from Solihull, I have a lot less familiarity with over the past 15 years.
Well Digbeth and round there, out from the city centre, is really thriving and has been developed. A big improvement from the eighties and nineties.
The developments coming with the new Sports Quarter from Blues will also improve the area around Stab City.
There are developments in the Brummie Hinterland definitely.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Evolutionary spiral - those who are 100% about getting to the top do better in getting to the top than those who waste 10% on policy.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Because the stakes are so low. No longer part of the European project and flotsam to the whims of the US. All they can do is smile and take the money.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No. He comes across as an idiot.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
That’s not quite true. Manchester is also a private sector success story, it’s not purely a state funded enterprise.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
Burnham considerably improved his reputation as mayor. So far, this campaign is dragging it back down again.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Evolutionary spiral - those who are 100% about getting to the top do better in getting to the top than those who waste 10% on policy.
Also worth noting the downside of democracy is that campaigning for electoral success and governing a nation well are different skills. Likewise, winning an internal party battle to usurp the leadership is not the same thing as having a sound understanding of long term economic needs of the nation.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Evolutionary spiral - those who are 100% about getting to the top do better in getting to the top than those who waste 10% on policy.
Also worth noting the downside of democracy is that campaigning for electoral success and governing a nation well are different skills. Likewise, winning an internal party battle to usurp the leadership is not the same thing as having a sound understanding of long term economic needs of the nation.
Isn't that true of any form of government ?
It's not as though Lenin, Stalin or Mao were spectacular successes in government. Unless you're rating them by mass deaths.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Evolutionary spiral - those who are 100% about getting to the top do better in getting to the top than those who waste 10% on policy.
Also worth noting the downside of democracy is that campaigning for electoral success and governing a nation well are different skills. Likewise, winning an internal party battle to usurp the leadership is not the same thing as having a sound understanding of long term economic needs of the nation.
Yes, we try to use certain indicators to predict if someone (or some party) will provide great competence or more effective vision, but it's still mostly a crapshoot, and unforeseen events and public capriciousness leading to inevitable uncertainty for the politicians only make it even worse.
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
Jenny Stephenson @JennyS53968 · 4h The anti-semitic backlash we're seeing is horrendous. But when we see things like this, we better understand where its coming from. Too many people aren't distinguishing between judaism, and this toxic extreme zionism. Leaders must draw the distinction and condemn the latter.
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
A pretty feeble effort at rationalising the quagmire.
The rest of the world is paying the price of Trump's idiocy.
But some woke stuff, like windmills, have been stopped, so it’s all OK… is, I understand, the line to be taken.
"RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC WINDMILLS! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here; lots of sun and white(ish) clouds.
Can anyone explain why Trump always ends his posts with "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"? He is, after all, no matter how much we may regret it, POTUS so anyone with more than a very passing interest in current affairs is bound to take an interest in his ravings.
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
As I've mentioned, I think what could really panic Labour is a total wipe out of councillors in one or more places they currently control in the metros.
This could be in a by-thirds, for instance, losing control of Tameside or Wigan by winning no seats on this round, or it could be a total wipe out in an all-up election.
I'd been of the mind that somewhere like Sunderland, a Labour councillor could sneak a second or third place in the odd ward.
However, I had a quick tot up of how the regular London all ups panned out in 2022 and now I'm not so sure - only just over 10% of the total seats split between different parties. Now, I'm expecting with the polling as it stands now that to be a little higher, both in London and elsewhere, but that is still a lot of wards that will return 3 Reform councillors.
If Labour are eliminated totally from even a handful of metros, that will be potentially the most seismic event. It's possible, but not that likely, that a Labour London stronghold could feature in that list.
Am I the only one who thinks Andy Burnham is a complete pillock?
No.
I don't get what the fuss is about. He was a poor minister, is another overblown self-promoter and has repeatedly shown a lack of judgment. And comes across as smarmy.
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
A pretty feeble effort at rationalising the quagmire.
The rest of the world is paying the price of Trump's idiocy.
But some woke stuff, like windmills, have been stopped, so it’s all OK… is, I understand, the line to be taken.
"RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC WINDMILLS! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here; lots of sun and white(ish) clouds.
Can anyone explain why Trump always ends his posts with "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"? He is, after all, no matter how much we may regret it, POTUS so anyone with more than a very passing interest in current affairs is bound to take an interest in his ravings.
“ Kortazar, a far-left Spanish activist, did what good comrades do, she opened her home to a North African migrant.
Once he got what he wanted, the man started sexually harassing her, insulting her, and beating her. Then he threw her out, changed the locks, and took over the house.
She called the police for help. Their response? “We can’t do anything without a court order.”
Now she’s sleeping at relatives’ houses, seeing a psychologist after a nervous breakdown, and has launched a petition to fast-track the legal process and get her home back.”
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
A pretty feeble effort at rationalising the quagmire.
The rest of the world is paying the price of Trump's idiocy.
But some woke stuff, like windmills, have been stopped, so it’s all OK… is, I understand, the line to be taken.
"RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC WINDMILLS! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here; lots of sun and white(ish) clouds.
Can anyone explain why Trump always ends his posts with "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"? He is, after all, no matter how much we may regret it, POTUS so anyone with more than a very passing interest in current affairs is bound to take an interest in his ravings.
Because he is a world class troll.
Well, he's certainly a world class unpleasant of some sort.
“ Kortazar, a far-left Spanish activist, did what good comrades do, she opened her home to a North African migrant.
Once he got what he wanted, the man started sexually harassing her, insulting her, and beating her. Then he threw her out, changed the locks, and took over the house.
She called the police for help. Their response? “We can’t do anything without a court order.”
Now she’s sleeping at relatives’ houses, seeing a psychologist after a nervous breakdown, and has launched a petition to fast-track the legal process and get her home back.”
NEWSOM: Fox News needs to keep paying the price until they change the way they do business. I just wanted a simple apology. Own up to your lies. They refused. They thought they would get this thrown out. And this judge said hold on boys and girls — lets get ready for discovery. https://x.com/NewsomNews/status/2050655515005607958
NEWSOM: Fox News needs to keep paying the price until they change the way they do business. I just wanted a simple apology. Own up to your lies. They refused. They thought they would get this thrown out. And this judge said hold on boys and girls — lets get ready for discovery. https://x.com/NewsomNews/status/2050655515005607958
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
“By default” seems an odd way to describe Burnham, someone not even currently eligible for the role. There are 402 other Labour MPs who seem more “by default” than Burnham.
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
“By default” seems an odd way to describe Burnham, someone not even currently eligible for the role. There are 402 other Labour MPs who seem more “by default” than Burnham.
If the MPs decide they want Burnham they’ll wait around until he’s in Parliament. I can’t see why this isn’t the default scenario.
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
“By default” seems an odd way to describe Burnham, someone not even currently eligible for the role. There are 402 other Labour MPs who seem more “by default” than Burnham.
You'd think with a potential talent pool that big, you might be able to find some talent in there somewhere.
Jenny Stephenson @JennyS53968 · 4h The anti-semitic backlash we're seeing is horrendous. But when we see things like this, we better understand where its coming from. Too many people aren't distinguishing between judaism, and this toxic extreme zionism. Leaders must draw the distinction and condemn the latter.
We also need to see greater nuance in signs and chants at demos. It's not rocket science.
"Free free Palestine! But not necessarily from the river to the sea and definitely not by globalising the intifada"
"Death to Zionism! By which we mean the oppression of Palestinians in pursuit of a Greater Israel, not Jewish people in general"
"No to Jew hatred! But yes to death to Zionism as now properly defined above"
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
I don't rate Starmer but removing him may be a mistake. If a successor isn't clearly better, then it just looks like infighting, as afflicted the Conservatives at the end of their time in office with numerous short term PMs.
In terms of timeframe, it's the equivalent of ditching Maggie in 1981.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
Evolutionary spiral - those who are 100% about getting to the top do better in getting to the top than those who waste 10% on policy.
Also worth noting the downside of democracy is that campaigning for electoral success and governing a nation well are different skills. Likewise, winning an internal party battle to usurp the leadership is not the same thing as having a sound understanding of long term economic needs of the nation.
Isn't that true of any form of government ?
It's not as though Lenin, Stalin or Mao were spectacular successes in government. Unless you're rating them by mass deaths.
That's true, and the great upside of democracy is that rulers can be thrown out peacefully.
I'm serious. I am - clearly - an oyster obsessive. The 18 Carlingfords I had in Carlingford by Carlingford Lough, last week, was one of the most memorable meals of the year
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
“By default” seems an odd way to describe Burnham, someone not even currently eligible for the role. There are 402 other Labour MPs who seem more “by default” than Burnham.
You'd think with a potential talent pool that big, you might be able to find some talent in there somewhere.
I don’t support Labour, but I think there’s some talented people on the Labour benches. Labour people seem to rate the likes of Sarah Sackman, Deirdre Costigan, Heidi Alexander, Hilary Benn, Chris Curtis, Helena Dollimore etc.
As a strong former Starmer supporter the game is up.
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
“By default” seems an odd way to describe Burnham, someone not even currently eligible for the role. There are 402 other Labour MPs who seem more “by default” than Burnham.
You'd think with a potential talent pool that big, you might be able to find some talent in there somewhere.
Yes; I can't understand the enthusiasm for Burnham, unless it's because he's been, over the past few years, an efficient election winner and Mayor of a large city. Yes he seems to have done a good job in Manchester and that's a recommendation but I don't recall him as a particularly outstanding Sec of State for Health, unless one compares him with his successor, Lansley, who was a wrecker.
Unusually the BBC seems to have made out like a bandit on this one with huge revenues at the expense of ABC Apparently it is the most streamed show in the US of any genre ! Should have been able to freeze the license fee of the back of this tbh
Who'd have thunk that keeping a loser like Starner might be the least worst solution. How low can the Country sink.
It's harsh, I know, but Labour general election wins do tend to result in Labour Prime Ministers.
Though it's not particularly a partisan point.
Badenoch, Davey, Farage and Polanski are different kinds of dreadful.
Maybe 2024's Sunak v Starmer is as good as it got.
It seems that many people who have spent the best part of two years calling Keir Starmer an absolute disaster and the worst PM in history are somewhat perturbed at the prospect of his departure.
It's a story in the Telegraph so hmm. But if Starmer really has lost control of the NEC he is finished.
I have a reasonably well connected source at the top of the Labour Party and they've described this story as 'absolute fucking bollocks'.
Burnham pushed a story in The Guardian last night and now he is doing the same with The Sunday Telegraph.
So this source for the Telegraph story, is it Bandy Urnham by any chance?
(The paradox is that this arguably shores up Starmer over the short term. After all, why start a leadership contest now if a much better candidate is going to be heading to Westminster really really soon?)
Why does he think he's so great anyway? Ran in 2010 for no good reason and got a whopping 8%. Narcissist weirdo. I'd rather keep Starmer.
Trump: “I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us, but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
A pretty feeble effort at rationalising the quagmire.
The rest of the world is paying the price of Trump's idiocy.
But some woke stuff, like windmills, have been stopped, so it’s all OK… is, I understand, the line to be taken.
"RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC WINDMILLS! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here; lots of sun and white(ish) clouds.
Can anyone explain why Trump always ends his posts with "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"? He is, after all, no matter how much we may regret it, POTUS so anyone with more than a very passing interest in current affairs is bound to take an interest in his ravings.
Due to being an absolute narcissistic bellend, he thinks it is clever
I share TSE's scepticism as expressed earlier in the thread.
These stories are clearly coming from the Burnham camp, with absolutely no cooroberating evidence. "Story" is an apt word for them because they are fiction. The Telegraph doesn't mind running them because they serve to undermine Starmer. But I remember the times when those on the left didn't lap up every word they read in the Telegraph as the gospel truth.
Reality is that Starmer has ensured that the factional right in the Labour Party is absolutely dominant in terms of the NEC officer posts, with the exception of Lucy Powell who they could not prevent from being elected as Deputy Leader. Even if some of them have decided that Starmer has to go, then such is their factionalism that they are not going to try an engineer a drawn out coup that would somehow usher in the favoured candidate of the Socialist Campaign Group, just because he is the candidate most likely to appeal to the general public. They will try a reset with one of their own, which means either getting behind Streeting or, if they think Streeting has no hope of winning a member ballot, they might just compromise a bit and favour someone with broader appeal like say Cooper. But with Burnham flying his left wing manifesto from the rooftops, no way will they facilitate a route for Burnham.
"Airlines can cancel flights in advance over fuel shortages, under new plans"
It makes a lot of sense; if there are going to be serious shortages, frankly the last thing we should be doing with the available resources is burning it so people can go on their holibobs. Most air travel is moderately frivolous - things like power generation and food supply really aren't.
Unless someone has a monopoly they're abusing there shouldn't be a rule that you have to use your slot to keep it in the first place. Just sell it to the highest bidder and let them fill it or not.
Most of the slots were allocated historically and now it is “use it or lose it”
Comments
...
The Mail on Sunday knows the identity of the two people involved, but has decided not to identify them.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15785535/Violent-BBC-presenter-broke-female-colleagues-wrist-attack-hushed-bosses-latest-cover-following-Scott-Mills-Huw-Edwards-scandals.html
Unintended irony from the Mail on Sunday?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/tablea11principalprojectionuksummary
Anyway, good morning. The race has been moved three hours earlier, starting 6pm UK time.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/breaking-new-start-time-confirmed-for-miami-grand-prix-following-weather-concerns.36mNfBCj5LLIRbgxAgjZIn
Humbug.
https://www.ladbrokes.com/en/sports/event/formula-1/formula-1/world-championship/gp-miami-race/255149684/main-markets
I appreciate the heads up. My sleepy error being accidentally misleading.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-tory-local-election-candidate-suspended-hitler-jewish-b1280608.html
Were our prospective politicians always like this and social media just let’s us see it, or has social media encouraged more extreme views and language?
Presume you mean the modern usage. And no.
If it were Rayner, Cooper, or Streeting he would be in much more trouble.
For this, ironically, he has Burnham to thank for his continual pot stirring...
The trouble is that in modern public life being a complete pillock is a competitive advantage, and very probably essential to survive.
The closed bubble nature of most SM doesn't discourage over-edgy remarks enough. It's a brilliant machine to reward ever-more outrageous comments.
That's not great, but then if those really bad comments escape into the wild, absolutely everyone finds out about them.
Still, it's made some people very rich.
His current role is essentially just spending money, not raising taxes to pay for it. He seems to think he can do this at Westminster too, hence his "why do we care about the bond markets" comments. That's the last sort of PM we need.
He’s sufficiently stupid he's iirc had 3(?) attempts to become leader of the Labour Party now, and he hasn't even figured out a way of coning the dunces there into letting him lead them.
About the only talent he has appears to be to speak in a northern accent, unfortunately for him that's a talent shared with millions of other people, most of whom would probably make a better prime minister than he would.
We took over the ship, we took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates
https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/2050526965812322392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oipMZClCJ0
Whatever the merits of that, it does create a cadre of politicians with an inherently childish attitude to money; if the only way you can fund a project is by nagging Whitehall, it's different to if you have to get the money via taxes with your name on them.
It's a definite problem with the way Mayors have been set up. There was that bloke in London who bombed on the national stage, in part because he had never had to learn about tradeoffs.
Multiple attempts at leadership shouldn’t be seen as a negative in my view. He’s had another 10 years of experience in politics since, that has to count for something.
That said, he could still be a vacuous nothing. We’ll see
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15785523/Cabinet-rebels-unite-local-election-results-disaster.html
Worried Labour MPs fear if the Chancellor is shown the door it could spark chaos.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2201211/rachel-reeves-bombshell-labour-replace-her
Thinly-veiled subtext is keep Keir Starmer in order to keep Ed Miliband away from the Treasury.
That’s why they’ve not reformed energy pricing or council tax, they’ve not restarted HS2 to Manchester/Liverpool/Sheffield, they’ve not implemented the Bee Network in other cities, no new trams , little investment in buses, the A1 hasn’t been duelled. No levers to spread some economic demand around.
Any northern seat would be interested in that kind of vibe. Some positivity + a grudge.
I don’t think the Manchester hinterland has stagnated? It has changed sure as it has become Manchester suburbs but in my experience the development extends far outside the city centre.
Birmingham, although I am from Solihull, I have a lot less familiarity with over the past 15 years.
On his 50th birthday, the wife of Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, presented him with a cake depicting a gallows.
https://x.com/eyeonpalestine/status/2050703412719738906?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Before a single ballot has been counted, mordant wags are calling it “Starmerggedon”. While soul-shredding defeats in Scotland and Wales are already anticipated, I am not sure the same can be said about the dismal fate they face in London. A shellacking in London will have an outsized influence on the fate of the prime minister. A significant proportion of the party’s activists and members are London-based. Just about every Labour MP will be doing the maths to work out what an atrocious night on Thursday might mean for their own chances of surviving in the Commons.
In Downing Street, the prime minister’s advisors are in the brace position and planning a “relaunch” to try to buy him more time. Sir Keir’s remaining allies will contend that they have suffered the “mid-term blues”, which often afflict governments. That won’t cut it. Labour is on course to be defeated in Scotland yet again, to lose Wales for the first time ever, and to shed about three quarters of the 2,500 or so council seats that the party is defending. All in all this could very well turn out to be Labour’s worst election performance in more than half a century. That can’t be shrugged off as merely “a slap in the face”. It will be blunt force trauma.
Even loyalists don’t pretend to know what will happen next. “The ice could break,” admits one cabinet member. If Number 10 loses control of events, there will be ministerial resignations and calls for the prime minister to step down followed by a full-frontal challenge if he won’t budge. They already know that they are in for a catastrophic night. Only when they have experienced the pain will it become clear whether Sir Keir is going to be given one more chance or his party’s patience is so terminally exhausted that Labour MPs will roll the dice on replacing him.
The developments coming with the new Sports Quarter from Blues will also improve the area around Stab City.
There are developments in the Brummie Hinterland definitely.
So why is it we have a generation of politicians and commentators who have febrile infighting as their main skill?
The rest of the world is paying the price of Trump's idiocy.
Starmer has nothing he is trying to do.
We need somebody with an idea or two who can sell it. Labour still has plenty of time to win the next election but not with Sir Keir at the helm.
How low can the Country sink.
It's not as though Lenin, Stalin or Mao were spectacular successes in government.
Unless you're rating them by mass deaths.
Jenny Stephenson
@JennyS53968
·
4h
The anti-semitic backlash we're seeing is horrendous. But when we see things like this, we better understand where its coming from. Too many people aren't distinguishing between judaism, and this toxic extreme zionism. Leaders must draw the distinction and condemn the latter.
Can anyone explain why Trump always ends his posts with "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"? He is, after all, no matter how much we may regret it, POTUS so anyone with more than a very passing interest in current affairs is bound to take an interest in his ravings.
This could be in a by-thirds, for instance, losing control of Tameside or Wigan by winning no seats on this round, or it could be a total wipe out in an all-up election.
I'd been of the mind that somewhere like Sunderland, a Labour councillor could sneak a second or third place in the odd ward.
However, I had a quick tot up of how the regular London all ups panned out in 2022 and now I'm not so sure - only just over 10% of the total seats split between different parties. Now, I'm expecting with the polling as it stands now that to be a little higher, both in London and elsewhere, but that is still a lot of wards that will return 3 Reform councillors.
If Labour are eliminated totally from even a handful of metros, that will be potentially the most seismic event. It's possible, but not that likely, that a Labour London stronghold could feature in that list.
I don't get what the fuss is about. He was a poor minister, is another overblown self-promoter and has repeatedly shown a lack of judgment. And comes across as smarmy.
He would be much worse than Starmer.
Badenoch, Davey, Farage and Polanski are different kinds of dreadful.
Maybe 2024's Sunak v Starmer is as good as it got.
“ Kortazar, a far-left Spanish activist, did what good comrades do, she opened her home to a North African migrant.
Once he got what he wanted, the man started sexually harassing her, insulting her, and beating her. Then he threw her out, changed the locks, and took over the house.
She called the police for help. Their response? “We can’t do anything without a court order.”
Now she’s sleeping at relatives’ houses, seeing a psychologist after a nervous breakdown, and has launched a petition to fast-track the legal process and get her home back.”
https://x.com/sap011/status/2050629603039891854?s=46
He cannot make a comeback. I personally don’t understand the visceral hatred he gets but that’s the reality. The public have decided and they don’t want him.
We need somebody new to take us to 2029. By default it must be Burnham but Streeting would also do.
Still, could have been worse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39r0pm2dm4o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d6x9jnp72o
https://x.com/NewsomNews/status/2050655515005607958
Reeves seems to be more important than Starmer. Especially to the bond markets.
We live in challenging times and our politicians are poor.
"Free free Palestine! But not necessarily from the river to the sea and definitely not by globalising the intifada"
"Death to Zionism! By which we mean the oppression of Palestinians in pursuit of a Greater Israel, not Jewish people in general"
"No to Jew hatred! But yes to death to Zionism as now properly defined above"
NEW THREAD
Interesting story here on Bluey revenue:
https://www.kidsnews.com.au/explainers/why-blueys-big-bucks-are-going-overseas-instead-of-staying-in-oz/news-story/494909103a5528e1008f5e9a0feef6f4
Unusually the BBC seems to have made out like a bandit on this one with huge revenues at the expense of ABC
Apparently it is the most streamed show in the US of any genre !
Should have been able to freeze the license fee of the back of this tbh
I share TSE's scepticism as expressed earlier in the thread.
These stories are clearly coming from the Burnham camp, with absolutely no cooroberating evidence. "Story" is an apt word for them because they are fiction. The Telegraph doesn't mind running them because they serve to undermine Starmer. But I remember the times when those on the left didn't lap up every word they read in the Telegraph as the gospel truth.
Reality is that Starmer has ensured that the factional right in the Labour Party is absolutely dominant in terms of the NEC officer posts, with the exception of Lucy Powell who they could not prevent from being elected as Deputy Leader. Even if some of them have decided that Starmer has to go, then such is their factionalism that they are not going to try an engineer a drawn out coup that would somehow usher in the favoured candidate of the Socialist Campaign Group, just because he is the candidate most likely to appeal to the general public. They will try a reset with one of their own, which means either getting behind Streeting or, if they think Streeting has no hope of winning a member ballot, they might just compromise a bit and favour someone with broader appeal like say Cooper. But with Burnham flying his left wing manifesto from the rooftops, no way will they facilitate a route for Burnham.
😉
Hey hey we're the LibDems.