The Telegraph was equally savage about the lack of intellectual curiosity by him among other things however I’d expect the Guardian to have been friendlier.
He’s a favourite ‘economist’ of Zack Polanski.
We’ve noticed the slide of Reform but The Greens have also slumped too.
Strong header but I suspect the re-rat is possible. Would strengthen Kemi's position to have at least some of them back.
Tails between legs?
Zahawi is out of Parliament.
Braverman is so incompetent even Truss fired her.
Jenrick is chiefly famous for painting over Mickey Mouse and basically achieved fuck all as either a minister or shadow minister. Moreover he's a compulsive plotter with an ego the size of Amanda Spielman's.
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
Strong header but I suspect the re-rat is possible. Would strengthen Kemi's position to have at least some of them back.
Tails between legs?
Zahawi is out of Parliament.
Braverman is so incompetent even Truss fired her.
Jenrick is chiefly famous for painting over Mickey Mouse and basically achieved fuck all as either a minister or shadow minister. Moreover he's a compulsive plotter with an ego the size of Amanda Spielman's.
Why would taking any of them back strengthen her?
Badenoch's USP is rather a fulsome Reform agenda. Why not get the band back together?
Very good header. Wouldn't be surprised to see most of these out of parliament at the next election, no way back.
They can look at the careers of Reckless and Carswell as a blueprint for their future.
Does beg the question about the hundreds of councillors, perhaps more conciliatory with them, if needed.
It's possible.
As PB's Reform UK Councillor Defenestration Correspondent, there could be a lorra-lorra Independent Councillors after the dust has settled, and another lot who return to the Cons.
There could also be some more Councils controlled or lead by Independent Groups or Parties - we already have around a dozen plus usuals such as the City or the Scillies, plus some other significant groups such as Boston or Great Yarmouth. Ashfield Independents still have 31 seats from 35 here, despite one of their leaders being an established crook, and the other one due before the Crown Court (has taken several yeas to get him there FFS just due to "process").
And there are other places where there has been long term local parties - Mansfield had iirc 4 terms of a Mansfield Independent Forum Mayor in a row.
If the Boston Bypass Independents could win a controlling majority in 2010, anything could happen. Two of the originals are still there 2-0 years later under different brands.
I note that Restore Britain are up to 32 Councillors, which is not very many, but his formation has 10 more in Great Yarmouth First. I can see that working elsewhere depending how he handles himself. The comparator for Restore Britain are perhaps the BNP, who peaked at 55 Councillors, with the shiny salesman suit swapped for something from the Archers. Though Rupes is 68 and it feels as much a one man vehicle as Reform to me.
The Telegraph was equally savage about the lack of intellectual curiosity by him among other things however I’d expect the Guardian to have been friendlier.
He’s a favourite ‘economist’ of Zack Polanski.
We’ve noticed the slide of Reform but The Greens have also slumped too.
Find Out Now have Greens at 16? And could be reason they place Tories ahead of Labour. As a rule of my thumb, I have Labour breaking 4 to Green for every one to Reform. Whilst each incremental step back for Reform has to be incremental rise for Tories, if not in next poll then, some poll soon.
Sorry, is unleashing all my pent up psephology boring you?
After reading the posts and Richard’s question on this yesterday, I looked it up. There’s two they use alternating for resigning since the 70s, historically there were hundreds they used or could use. Or even be thousands of these hundreds? It came about when Parliament, the commons, wrestling power from Kings, kings to set them up and attach money to bribe MPs into their camp, so to fight back commons ruled anyone taking one of these things is instantly cancelling their Parliament membership.
I’m sure there’s some who’d argue this is British constitution and isn’t brilliant and beautiful, whilst others come over all Porterhouse Blue and say what archaic gibberish, surely we can do MP resignations more modern in 21st century.
by statute they can only use these two remaining ones, I think it would be cool if law was Chancellor could invent a whole new one each time if they wanted, like the kings of old did, it could be themed on why someone resigning? Taking the Lord Governorship of the Clacton Chalets.
It seems ironic that an MP who takes a couple of guineas from the king should automatically lose his seat whereas an MP who receives £5M from a billionaire will stand proud and defend it. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
I understand, as soon as you are not an MP anymore, Parliament Investigations into you stop? So now Farage is Lieutenant Governor of the Clacton Chalets he is no longer being investigated on the serious questions that needed to be answered?
I don’t see why they shouldn’t carry on. But I think there are examples where because of this, some resignations were blocked so the investigating could continue. Maybe that suggestion from the Lib Dem’s to block and carry on investigating wasn’t so crazy? It was certainly the last thing Farage would like to happen - fight the seat after the investigation results.
In 2017 we changed the rules for police officers so that they could not escape responsibility for misconduct by retiring or leaving.
I do not see why public officials should be any different.
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
Of all of them surely he has the most doubts now as to what he has done?
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
We may be about to find out. Farage may just walk away. Does he really want two or three more years at the frontline like this and then possibly actually having to be PM and all the work involved (and no outside earnings etc)?
This stunt shows that he does want it imo. He genuinely wants to be PM. Otherwise he'd have gone with "this is intolerable, I've had enough, bye." It was a chance to do that.
That's four on the trot in July now, Labour third. Are people still desperately clinging to the Ipsos poll from last month to try and discredit this trend?
If you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
No, there is definite movement afoot. Remember PB knowledge it takes about 3 weeks for big political news to show in polls?
Three weeks of electorate looking at Burnham coming, this is their answer.
Don't be silly.
See here in 2007.
Labour didn't get consistent leads until Gordon Brown became leader/PM.
I would cite more examples but I am going out.
Only partisan hacks are over analysing the polls now.
To be fair to you, you say I’m over analysing these recent good polls for Badenoch’s Conservatives? I have been monitoring the wiki poll of poll chart all year, being one of the PBs leading psephologists, and what actually happened, and clearly there for everyone to see, the Tory upsplurge earlier this year when Reform started dropping, but although Reform continued to fall, Tories next started broadly flatlining for months. We don’t need an explanation for that flatlining now, because this further splurge in Conservative support has been overdue. I’m not over analysing it, I’ve known for weeks this was going to happen, because Reform are still sinking, and most their polling support they had stolen from the Conservatives.
I would also disagree with a suggestion that Manchester Mafia coup and ousting of Starmer’s government and his ministers and their policy hasn’t sunk in with voters yet. It’s had an awful lot of media coverage for a month. Voters appreciate it as a major change.
Why not, for a great many voters, the Reeves Starmer, Phillipson Mrs Balls Government of Slow but Consistent Managerialism of Statist Starmer’s Utterly Boring Government is preferable to the AOR Key Shifts from Fifth Beatles Chamber Pop of the Granada Mafia band.
And why wouldn’t that be a thing for a great many voters, who trusted a man with majority of 172 just two years ago? We are in mid term and a government is getting bashed 24/7 from all directions and bad election results and polling, but that’s merely normal isn’t it? Perhaps we all swallowed our own spin just how abysmal the Starmer government was, for not making quicker progress in the last two years? A lot of vox pop has picked up “they only had two years, is this fair?”
The key ingredient here is Burnham himself. How does anyone know he’s going to be better? They don’t. No one can possibly know that. And helpful reminders of the Brown Government only supports my argument.
More on Burnham as Starmer with a Mancunian accent
Changing the subject: Can Morocco beat France tonight?
Yes
Will FIFA let them - debatable
It's the other way around - all the match officials today are Argentinians - who would Argentina rather face in the final?
I think the VAR team spoke the same language as the Mexicans, if not even near neighbours too, and some of their referrals against England contrary to spirit of trusting the on field Ref as much as possible and letting it flow.
What shall we call this bias where you already know what VAR decided before they share it - Eurovision Voting Syndrome?
Good to finally see a bit of consistency from FIFA after the Balogun card suspension, they have rescinded Quansah’s red card given him a two match ban.
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
Of all of them surely he has the most doubts now as to what he has done?
Yes. Kruger must both see Farage and cronies for what they are, must comprehend the disconnect between the plutocrats intentions and the best interests of ordinary people, the people of Clacton, and Reform voters generally. He must realise that Farage is an amoral stoat and a chancer.
That's four on the trot in July now, Labour third. Are people still desperately clinging to the Ipsos poll from last month to try and discredit this trend?
If you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
No, there is definite movement afoot. Remember PB knowledge it takes about 3 weeks for big political news to show in polls?
Three weeks of electorate looking at Burnham coming, this is their answer.
Don't be silly.
See here in 2007.
Labour didn't get consistent leads until Gordon Brown became leader/PM.
I would cite more examples but I am going out.
Only partisan hacks are over analysing the polls now.
To be fair to you, you say I’m over analysing these recent good polls for Badenoch’s Conservatives? I have been monitoring the wiki poll of poll chart all year, being one of the PBs leading psephologists, and what actually happened, and clearly there for everyone to see, the Tory upsplurge earlier this year when Reform started dropping, but although Reform continued to fall, Tories next started broadly flatlining for months. We don’t need an explanation for that flatlining now, because this further splurge in Conservative support has been overdue. I’m not over analysing it, I’ve known for weeks this was going to happen, because Reform are still sinking, and most their polling support they had stolen from the Conservatives.
I would also disagree with a suggestion that Manchester Mafia coup and ousting of Starmer’s government and his ministers and their policy hasn’t sunk in with voters yet. It’s had an awful lot of media coverage for a month. Voters appreciate it as a major change.
Why not, for a great many voters, the Reeves Starmer, Phillipson Mrs Balls Government of Slow but Consistent Managerialism of Statist Starmer’s Utterly Boring Government is preferable to the AOR Key Shifts from Fifth Beatles Chamber Pop of the Granada Mafia band.
And why wouldn’t that be a thing for a great many voters, who trusted a man with majority of 172 just two years ago? We are in mid term and a government is getting bashed 24/7 from all directions and bad election results and polling, but that’s merely normal isn’t it? Perhaps we all swallowed our own spin just how abysmal the Starmer government was, for not making quicker progress in the last two years? A lot of vox pop has picked up “they only had two years, is this fair?”
The key ingredient here is Burnham himself. How does anyone know he’s going to be better? They don’t. No one can possibly know that. And helpful reminders of the Brown Government only supports my argument.
More on Burnham as Starmer with a Mancunian accent
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
Of all of them surely he has the most doubts now as to what he has done?
Yes. Kruger must both see Farage and cronies for what they are, must comprehend the disconnect between the plutocrats intentions and the best interests of ordinary people, the people of Clacton, and Reform voters generally. He must realise that Farage is an amoral stoat and a chancer.
I'm a big 'benefit of the doubt' man, still I am surprised he wouldn't have reached that conclusion before now.
Burnham apologises for Labours initial response to Gaza and is promising a shift in approach
Good
Labour should have condemned Israel’s disproportionate response when it needed it.
“ EXCL: Andy Burnham has apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying that the party “didn’t get it right” and needs to “do better” under his leadership, as he signals a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
The PM-in-waiting told me he would put more pressure on the Israeli government, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, but also potentially by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements.
As well as pushing for substantive change on the ground, Burnham’s intervention starts to address concerns among voters on Labour’s progressive flank, many of whom have abandoned the party over its position on Israel and Palestine.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.””
The Telegraph was equally savage about the lack of intellectual curiosity by him among other things however I’d expect the Guardian to have been friendlier.
He’s a favourite ‘economist’ of Zack Polanski.
We’ve noticed the slide of Reform but The Greens have also slumped too.
Though if you base your TV choices on Lucy Mangan reviews you'd stop watching TV.
Good to finally see a bit of consistency from FIFA after the Balogun card suspension, they have rescinded Quansah’s red card given him a two match ban.
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
This nails it. 'Living standards rising more slowly' is being perceived as 'living standards falling' by large chunks of the voting public across the West and they don't like it, so scapegoats (immigration, Europe, taxes etc.) are sought and quick 'fixes' lapped up.
My question is: is it inevitable that living standards continue to rise more slowly in the developed world (because... ultimately, growth cannot continue indefinitely) or is this some sort of seismic adjustment as we move from the industrial age to the AI age?
Also, is neoliberalism dead given it's failed to deliver anything but low growth for the past 20 years or so?
Living standards are falling for many.
House prices have risen faster than earnings for a long time now and housing is not properly factored into inflation which is based on home owners and not people who need to pay for where they live.
If you need to pay for the roof over your head, then living standards are for many lower than they would have been for someone comparable in the past.
The catch/irony is that Reform voters tend to be the ones insulated from house price inflation- either because they are in social housing or because they own their homes outright. (And there are about three times as many outright owners as social renters.)
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
Good to finally see a bit of consistency from FIFA after the Balogun card suspension, they have rescinded Quansah’s red card given him a two match ban.
I think what Quansah tried to do was take the ball first with his boot - his shin did touch the ball first, but his foot had gone on top the ball with studs up. It wasn’t a rash tackle, just failed to get it right. Red Card and ban is fair.
I don’t think England have always played brilliantly this World Cup, though Jude and Harry have been consistently on the money.. I think there’s legitimate questions about Tuchel’s squad picks. Despite their record in the stadium, largely built by different teams and better players, Mexico certainly lacked quality on the night - the occasion and pressure had got to Mexico who lacked composure throughout.
Burnham apologises for Labours initial response to Gaza and is promising a shift in approach
Good
Labour should have condemned Israel’s disproportionate response when it needed it.
“ EXCL: Andy Burnham has apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying that the party “didn’t get it right” and needs to “do better” under his leadership, as he signals a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
The PM-in-waiting told me he would put more pressure on the Israeli government, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, but also potentially by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements.
As well as pushing for substantive change on the ground, Burnham’s intervention starts to address concerns among voters on Labour’s progressive flank, many of whom have abandoned the party over its position on Israel and Palestine.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.””
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
Farage brings out those who don't normally vote.
Tice? He is a rather less, er, enticing prospect....
Perhaps Farage is bored already. The cut and thrust of real Hitleresque Naziism from the Whitehouse must be a more interesting prospect than batting for those who swig from cans of Madri as they go about their business on their mobility scooters navigating manfully the pavements of Jaywick and Clacton.
He's thinking "I could have made hundreds of millions. Damn it.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
I’m conflicted by this. We do not have the full facts on the case. Was his social media linked to his job? If not then who the hell cares if he is a dick in his social media. As far as I know it’s not a crime to make transphobic remarks, or to mock women etc. It show that you are a dick, but that’s it.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
"Hi. I'm Rupert Lowe."
He said that Dunblane was one murder, when in reality it was a mass murder of 17(?). It was a dickish thing to say. You could say it was one mad man, but not that it was one murder.
That's four on the trot in July now, Labour third. Are people still desperately clinging to the Ipsos poll from last month to try and discredit this trend?
If you look at the opinion poll graph on wikipedia the Tories and Labour have been pretty close for second and third since November 2025. So it's not really that surprising to have a run of polls with Labour in third. There have been loads of them over the months since. There were seven in a row at the end of December and the start of January, and seven in total in June.
it's not a "trend", it's the status quo.
Why are you ramping them as though they're something new and surprising?
No, there is definite movement afoot. Remember PB knowledge it takes about 3 weeks for big political news to show in polls?
Three weeks of electorate looking at Burnham coming, this is their answer.
Don't be silly.
See here in 2007.
Labour didn't get consistent leads until Gordon Brown became leader/PM.
I would cite more examples but I am going out.
Only partisan hacks are over analysing the polls now.
To be fair to you, you say I’m over analysing these recent good polls for Badenoch’s Conservatives? I have been monitoring the wiki poll of poll chart all year, being one of the PBs leading psephologists, and what actually happened, and clearly there for everyone to see, the Tory upsplurge earlier this year when Reform started dropping, but although Reform continued to fall, Tories next started broadly flatlining for months. We don’t need an explanation for that flatlining now, because this further splurge in Conservative support has been overdue. I’m not over analysing it, I’ve known for weeks this was going to happen, because Reform are still sinking, and most their polling support they had stolen from the Conservatives.
I would also disagree with a suggestion that Manchester Mafia coup and ousting of Starmer’s government and his ministers and their policy hasn’t sunk in with voters yet. It’s had an awful lot of media coverage for a month. Voters appreciate it as a major change.
Why not, for a great many voters, the Reeves Starmer, Phillipson Mrs Balls Government of Slow but Consistent Managerialism of Statist Starmer’s Utterly Boring Government is preferable to the AOR Key Shifts from Fifth Beatles Chamber Pop of the Granada Mafia band.
And why wouldn’t that be a thing for a great many voters, who trusted a man with majority of 172 just two years ago? We are in mid term and a government is getting bashed 24/7 from all directions and bad election results and polling, but that’s merely normal isn’t it? Perhaps we all swallowed our own spin just how abysmal the Starmer government was, for not making quicker progress in the last two years? A lot of vox pop has picked up “they only had two years, is this fair?”
The key ingredient here is Burnham himself. How does anyone know he’s going to be better? They don’t. No one can possibly know that. And helpful reminders of the Brown Government only supports my argument.
More on Burnham as Starmer with a Mancunian accent
I don't think I have put this here, but two of my acquaintances who lead a successful active travel activist group in Manchester (Walk-Ride GM) who have worked with Andy Burnham and his team for about 4-5 years, recorded a podcast reflecting on Burnham, and also give an account of the 4-5 years before they set up the group - looking at Burnham habits, strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures.
It is through an active travel lens, and sis nearly an hour, but they note that he spent political capital on the Clean Air Zone and then gave up (unlike London), and likes to get just what he has asked for (he may walk away if he does not).
"Moving Up North: Andy Burnham's Active Travel Legacy in Greater Manchester" It is nearly 55 minutes, but is in a number of chapter. The last 15 minutes may be of interest.
I think that AB will choose a couple of areas for focus, and needs good Cabinet Ministers who can be left and trusted to do their thing effectively most of the time. As I see it, that was a David Cameron pattern.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Teacher and children killed at Dunblain only counts as one. 🤷♀️
An insight into mind of a very selfish man.
But does a comment like that matter a jot or register at all to his base of supporters?
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
There's been some great moments in my life as a politics junkie eg:
The 97 landslide The 17 surprise Obama 08 Trump out in 20
All of these would be topped by Nigel Farage being beaten (his career therefore ended) by Count Binface in Clacton. The thought of him up there on the stage conceding to the Bin ... I mean, cmon. It would be simply unimprovable. If it happens we might as well call it a day. There would be little point carrying on.
But for that very reason I think it cannot happen. It would be the most excruciating public humiliation of a politician ever seen, so if Farage gets wind that such a thing is possible he will find a way to withdraw.
I’m conflicted by this. We do not have the full facts on the case. Was his social media linked to his job? If not then who the hell cares if he is a dick in his social media. As far as I know it’s not a crime to make transphobic remarks, or to mock women etc. It show that you are a dick, but that’s it.
Can someone with misogynistic views (which are implied by misogynistic comments) fulfill the duties and responsibilities of a police officer? It seems unlikely.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
The sad thing is the american audience would be no less likely to sympathise with Lowe's lamenting the loss of guns if he had not lied (and the quote makes clear it was not a mistake) and had stated it was a massacre - americans don't care when there is a massacre in their own country, they certainly wouldn't agree that taking away guns because of one little massacre in the UK was justified.
I’m conflicted by this. We do not have the full facts on the case. Was his social media linked to his job? If not then who the hell cares if he is a dick in his social media. As far as I know it’s not a crime to make transphobic remarks, or to mock women etc. It show that you are a dick, but that’s it.
Can someone with misogynistic views (which are implied by misogynistic comments) fulfill the duties and responsibilities of a police officer? It seems unlikely.
Most of the time? Probably. I say that on the basis that there have likely been many misogynistic, racist, and other horrible people who were adequate police officers. But there would be times when they wouldn't be adequate as a result of those views.
And it seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss an officer on that basis, because you don't have to have committed a crime to be considered unsuitable for a job. Simply being too much of an arsehole will prevent you being hired by most people if it is known beforehand, and whilst it is harder to get fired, such behaviour being revealed when in post is going to have consequences.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Teacher and children killed at Dunblain only counts as one. 🤷♀️
An insight into mind of a very selfish man.
But does a comment like that matter a jot or register at all to his base of supporters?
Their whole thing is saying the unsayable. Some of them will not like this particular unsayable part, but they can hardly object to the general impetus to say horrible things.
At risk of inflaming those worried the Reform criticism is too pavlovian in these parts, it is a matter of historical record that many of those who have worked with Farage have found it very difficult. Now, some of those were absolute wrong uns and egomaniacs, but it does seem fair to say that if we were compiling a list of positives and negatives for Reform, Farage would be in both columns due to both his appeal, but also risk of disruption that seems to follow him.
Strong header but I suspect the re-rat is possible. Would strengthen Kemi's position to have at least some of them back.
Tails between legs?
Zahawi is out of Parliament.
Braverman is so incompetent even Truss fired her.
Jenrick is chiefly famous for painting over Mickey Mouse and basically achieved fuck all as either a minister or shadow minister. Moreover he's a compulsive plotter with an ego the size of Amanda Spielman's.
Why would taking any of them back strengthen her?
It wouldn't be about the individual, but about what it signaled - an admission of defeat and humility.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
I’m conflicted by this. We do not have the full facts on the case. Was his social media linked to his job? If not then who the hell cares if he is a dick in his social media. As far as I know it’s not a crime to make transphobic remarks, or to mock women etc. It show that you are a dick, but that’s it.
It does not have to be a crime to be gross misconduct, bringing your employer into disrepute is a no-no in many contracts.
Burnham apologises for Labours initial response to Gaza and is promising a shift in approach
Good
Labour should have condemned Israel’s disproportionate response when it needed it.
“ EXCL: Andy Burnham has apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying that the party “didn’t get it right” and needs to “do better” under his leadership, as he signals a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
The PM-in-waiting told me he would put more pressure on the Israeli government, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, but also potentially by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements.
As well as pushing for substantive change on the ground, Burnham’s intervention starts to address concerns among voters on Labour’s progressive flank, many of whom have abandoned the party over its position on Israel and Palestine.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.””
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
If he's carefully parsing his words to leave out the inconvenient things so he does not have to address them or confront his moral convictions, then I'd say he was desperate to appear honourable rather than be honourable.
Which, of course, is a quite dishonourable thing to do, as it means you utilising an honourable image to imply certain things are acceptable without saying so.
That's fine, everyone is a bit morally grey in politics, but I don't think Kruger can rely on on reputation for honesty and morality if he will dissemble like anyone else.
Very stupid of him to go anywhere near that subject, but it's absolutely possible he didn't mean to minimise it. Not exactly media trained.
The first time I listened to it that's exactly what I thought he meant. I think he ended up in a grey space where he conflated one mass murder with one murder, and then Rogan starts puffing like a pug and he couldn't resist the semi-deliberate conflation to further excite his host.
But you're wrong to say he didn't mean to minimise it - that's precisely what he set out to do by bringing up that example, worsened by the fact he hasn't come up out with a excuse yet.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
At risk of inflaming those worried the Reform criticism is too pavlovian in these parts, it is a matter of historical record that many of those who have worked with Farage have found it very difficult. Now, some of those were absolute wrong uns and egomaniacs, but it does seem fair to say that if we were compiling a list of positives and negatives for Reform, Farage would be in both columns due to both his appeal, but also risk of disruption that seems to follow him.
Farage is in the category of he's met ten (hundreds of) arseholes, and therefore he's the arsehole.
Anyway. Here's an argument. Davis' decision to force a by-election in 2008 led to a hard Brexit.
It meant that Davis didn't become Home Secretary in 2010, that role being taken by Theresa May. This made it much more likely that May became PM in 2016. And her inept handling of Brexit while PM led to a hard Brexit.
Burnham apologises for Labours initial response to Gaza and is promising a shift in approach
Good
Labour should have condemned Israel’s disproportionate response when it needed it.
“ EXCL: Andy Burnham has apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying that the party “didn’t get it right” and needs to “do better” under his leadership, as he signals a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
The PM-in-waiting told me he would put more pressure on the Israeli government, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, but also potentially by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements.
As well as pushing for substantive change on the ground, Burnham’s intervention starts to address concerns among voters on Labour’s progressive flank, many of whom have abandoned the party over its position on Israel and Palestine.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.””
Has anyone told Andy Burnham he is not yet Prime Minister?
He needs to reassure those in the party upset by Gaza without committing to anything specific. That may well be easier to do before he formally gets in.
Very stupid of him to go anywhere near that subject, but it's absolutely possible that he's a massive arsehole with no consideration for anyone else, probably 100% certain
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
I’m conflicted by this. We do not have the full facts on the case. Was his social media linked to his job? If not then who the hell cares if he is a dick in his social media. As far as I know it’s not a crime to make transphobic remarks, or to mock women etc. It show that you are a dick, but that’s it.
It does not have to be a crime to be gross misconduct, bringing your employer into disrepute is a no-no in many contracts.
Especially if you are in a public-facing role.
First thing you get taught in something like accountancy is perception of independence is just as important as actual indendence, and you can never do anything that could undermine that. For the police it's even more important - everyone regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc etc must feel that will be treated the same.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
There's a world of difference between accidentally saying 'one murder' to mean 'one mass murder' and then confirming 'one murder' when someone seeks clarity on that point, especially when the common interpretation of one murder will be, well, one murder. Lowe is not stupid, he would know what people would think that would mean.
Had Rogan not tried to clarify I could believe it was just a slip and given the benefit of the doubt.
Any poll showing Reforms lead down is a good poll even if that shows Labour in third and the Tories second .
The anti Reformers out there need to accept that if they start imploding it’s good news for the Tories . The country can survive another Tory government it won’t survive Reform IMO .
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
This nails it. 'Living standards rising more slowly' is being perceived as 'living standards falling' by large chunks of the voting public across the West and they don't like it, so scapegoats (immigration, Europe, taxes etc.) are sought and quick 'fixes' lapped up.
My question is: is it inevitable that living standards continue to rise more slowly in the developed world (because... ultimately, growth cannot continue indefinitely) or is this some sort of seismic adjustment as we move from the industrial age to the AI age?
Also, is neoliberalism dead given it's failed to deliver anything but low growth for the past 20 years or so?
Living standards are falling for many.
House prices have risen faster than earnings for a long time now and housing is not properly factored into inflation which is based on home owners and not people who need to pay for where they live.
If you need to pay for the roof over your head, then living standards are for many lower than they would have been for someone comparable in the past.
The catch/irony is that Reform voters tend to be the ones insulated from house price inflation- either because they are in social housing or because they own their homes outright. (And there are about three times as many outright owners as social renters.)
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
I was thinking how I would describe the politics of this end of Ashfield (the Northern end AKA the "Nottinghamshire Funbelt" - the Southern end is merging into Nottingham) in summary. In index of deprivation terms we tend to be at about 30th percentile level from the bottom, which is way better than certain areas, and the business base has rebuilt in many ways from the post-pit-closure era.
My three words were "disengaged" and "sullen", with a measure of "cynical".
That is probably on balance too negative, and is influenced by a long period of very strange local politics, with no end in sight. In their own personal bubbles most people are OK, the housing market still works, and so on.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Any poll showing Reforms lead down is a good poll even if that shows Labour in third and the Tories second .
The anti Reformers out there need to accept that if they start imploding it’s good news for the Tories . The country can survive another Tory government it won’t survive Reform IMO .
Others might disagree but that’s where I’m at .
You don't agree that the main reason Reform are down is because Restore are up?
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Yup, he gets very upset when you point out he's a hypocrite when he was in government.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Yup, he gets very upset when you point out he's a hypocrite when he was in government.
Hypocrisy requires some insight. He's just a moron.
Any poll showing Reforms lead down is a good poll even if that shows Labour in third and the Tories second .
The anti Reformers out there need to accept that if they start imploding it’s good news for the Tories . The country can survive another Tory government it won’t survive Reform IMO .
Others might disagree but that’s where I’m at .
You don't agree that the main reason Reform are down is because Restore are up?
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
This nails it. 'Living standards rising more slowly' is being perceived as 'living standards falling' by large chunks of the voting public across the West and they don't like it, so scapegoats (immigration, Europe, taxes etc.) are sought and quick 'fixes' lapped up.
My question is: is it inevitable that living standards continue to rise more slowly in the developed world (because... ultimately, growth cannot continue indefinitely) or is this some sort of seismic adjustment as we move from the industrial age to the AI age?
Also, is neoliberalism dead given it's failed to deliver anything but low growth for the past 20 years or so?
Living standards are falling for many.
House prices have risen faster than earnings for a long time now and housing is not properly factored into inflation which is based on home owners and not people who need to pay for where they live.
If you need to pay for the roof over your head, then living standards are for many lower than they would have been for someone comparable in the past.
The catch/irony is that Reform voters tend to be the ones insulated from house price inflation- either because they are in social housing or because they own their homes outright. (And there are about three times as many outright owners as social renters.)
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
I was thinking how I would describe the politics of this end of Ashfield (the Northern end AKA the "Nottinghamshire Funbelt" - the Southern end is merging into Nottingham) in summary. In index of deprivation terms we tend to be at about 30th percentile level from the bottom, which is way better than certain areas, and the business base has rebuilt in many ways from the post-pit-closure era.
My three words were "disengaged" and "sullen", with a measure of "cynical".
That is probably on balance too negative, and is influenced by a long period of very strange local politics, with no end in sight. In their own personal bubbles most people are OK, the housing market still works, and so on.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Yup, he gets very upset when you point out he's a hypocrite when he was in government.
Hypocrisy requires some insight. He's just a moron.
I wrote in a header he was useful as a marzipan dildo.
Changing the subject: Can Morocco beat France tonight?
My French friend says whoever wins, Paris will be burning tonight. She seemed quite certain of this.
Morocco are a very good side, very organised, excellent defence, maybe lacking a bit in penetration. It's a one off and they could win but France are clear favourites.
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
Farage brings out those who don't normally vote.
Tice? He is a rather less, er, enticing prospect....
Perhaps Farage is bored already. The cut and thrust of real Hitleresque Naziism from the Whitehouse must be a more interesting prospect than batting for those who swig from cans of Madri as they go about their business on their mobility scooters navigating manfully the pavements of Jaywick and Clacton.
there are very few pavements in Jaywick. At least that was the case when I was there last.
Jaywick is not Clacton. It's Mondeo Man country where MM has made their money, paid off their mortgage. They were Labour, went to the Conservatives and now Reform. Some stats.
Changing the subject: Can Morocco beat France tonight?
My French friend says whoever wins, Paris will be burning tonight. She seemed quite certain of this.
Morocco are a very good side, very organised, excellent defence, maybe lacking a bit in penetration. It's a one off and they could win but France are clear favourites.
All Argentinian match officials though for this match.
Any poll showing Reforms lead down is a good poll even if that shows Labour in third and the Tories second .
The anti Reformers out there need to accept that if they start imploding it’s good news for the Tories . The country can survive another Tory government it won’t survive Reform IMO .
Others might disagree but that’s where I’m at .
You don't agree that the main reason Reform are down is because Restore are up?
Ipsos June 2025
Reform 34%
Lab 25%
Con 15%
Lib Dems 11%
Greens 9%
Restore 0%
Ipsos June 2026
Reform 26% (down 8%)
Restore 3% (+3%)
So no.
My gods, every other party disappeared in 12 months, we should be lucky Reform are not massively up!
Changing the subject: Can Morocco beat France tonight?
My French friend says whoever wins, Paris will be burning tonight. She seemed quite certain of this.
Morocco are a very good side, very organised, excellent defence, maybe lacking a bit in penetration. It's a one off and they could win but France are clear favourites.
Who are Scots rooting for? I can see an argument for either side for them..
Changing the subject: Can Morocco beat France tonight?
My French friend says whoever wins, Paris will be burning tonight. She seemed quite certain of this.
Morocco are a very good side, very organised, excellent defence, maybe lacking a bit in penetration. It's a one off and they could win but France are clear favourites.
All Argentinian match officials though for this match.
Well its not like they have a vested interest, is it? Jeez
From the header: Spare a thought for Robert Jenrick. Or Suella Braverman. Or maybe Tim Montgomerie. Or, perhaps most of all, the cerebral Danny Kruger.
Indeed. I mentioned earlier the silence of Kruger, who continues not to bark on X.
Kruger has however apparently said this:
Kruger claimed “the government and its allies in the media and the other political parties” were working to stack the system against Farage’s party by cancelling elections and changing the rules to stop it from winning power.
“Nigel has decided, I think rightly, that that’s not acceptable, and what needs to happen now is that his voters — the people who should ultimately decide whether he has a place in politics — should have the chance to send a clear signal that they still believe in him,” added Kruger.
I think Kruger is the type to go all in when he takes a position, and hence be just as willing to use the same lines as others.
It still makes no sense to suggest backing from the public before its comfirmed you did something wrong absolves you somehow, people support others from attack but can change their mind as facts emerge.
I think he'd win a recall, and that actually would mean something.
Yes in part. Notice what Kruger does not say. He does not say that somehow a by election will vindicate Farage over the £5 million etc. he doesn't mention it at all. It's a non barking dog. He can't truthfully say anything so he says nothing. He points only to arguably real things - the cancelling of elections and rule changing (perhaps he points at the possibility of changing from FPTP??)
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
If he's carefully parsing his words to leave out the inconvenient things so he does not have to address them or confront his moral convictions, then I'd say he was desperate to appear honourable rather than be honourable.
Which, of course, is a quite dishonourable thing to do, as it means you utilising an honourable image to imply certain things are acceptable without saying so.
That's fine, everyone is a bit morally grey in politics, but I don't think Kruger can rely on on reputation for honesty and morality if he will dissemble like anyone else.
Fair points. I make a working assumption that Kruger is, as politicians go, a principled and decent man. He made a big mistake by aligning himself to stoats and chancers worse than the Tories and now must realise it. In this current interim between realisation and fork in the road he temporises the best he can, and we should cut him some slack. Where he goes next I do not know. He can stay and pretend, he can try to rejoin the Tories (who will say no but in his case should relent), he can, like old soldiers, fade away, or he can do something else. His Eton/Edinburgh/Oxford/Evangelical networks won't let him starve in the streets.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Yup, he gets very upset when you point out he's a hypocrite when he was in government.
Hypocrisy requires some insight. He's just a moron.
I wrote in a header he was useful as a marzipan dildo.
The story about Davis' resignation was that he went ahead with it anyway, even though Cameron opposed it. I don't remember if he discussed it with him first, but I seem to recall Cameron not being happy about it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
He didn't discuss it with Dave.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
Now that is funny.
Dave then offered him a job in 2010 but Davis turned it down.
And now I think he spends most of his time going on about Lucy Letby?
Yup, he gets very upset when you point out he's a hypocrite when he was in government.
Hypocrisy requires some insight. He's just a moron.
I wrote in a header he was useful as a marzipan dildo.
Nobody said I was wrong.
Gyles Brandreth's accounts of being Whipped by DD of the SS do make Davis sound deliciously absurd.
Burnham storms to 322 nominations for Labour leadership
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
"Burnham is currently just one short of securing 323 nominations, which is when it is mathematically impossible for a rival to reach the 81-MP threshold needed to run against him."
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
Farage brings out those who don't normally vote.
Tice? He is a rather less, er, enticing prospect....
Perhaps Farage is bored already. The cut and thrust of real Hitleresque Naziism from the Whitehouse must be a more interesting prospect than batting for those who swig from cans of Madri as they go about their business on their mobility scooters navigating manfully the pavements of Jaywick and Clacton.
there are very few pavements in Jaywick. At least that was the case when I was there last.
Jaywick is not Clacton. It's Mondeo Man country where MM has made their money, paid off their mortgage. They were Labour, went to the Conservatives and now Reform. Some stats.
What Rupert Lowe said must have been an innocent mistake, because no politician would knowingly torpedo their own electoral chances by deliberately saying something like that.
What did Rupert Lowe say?
Fury as Restore Britain leader describes Dunblane tragedy as 'one murder'
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
There's a world of difference between accidentally saying 'one murder' to mean 'one mass murder' and then confirming 'one murder' when someone seeks clarity on that point, especially when the common interpretation of one murder will be, well, one murder. Lowe is not stupid, he would know what people would think that would mean.
Had Rogan not tried to clarify I could believe it was just a slip and given the benefit of the doubt.
The downplaying of Dunblane was calculated. Rupert was intent on highlighting the bigger (consequential) tragedy of people like his father who had their pistols taken away.
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
This nails it. 'Living standards rising more slowly' is being perceived as 'living standards falling' by large chunks of the voting public across the West and they don't like it, so scapegoats (immigration, Europe, taxes etc.) are sought and quick 'fixes' lapped up.
My question is: is it inevitable that living standards continue to rise more slowly in the developed world (because... ultimately, growth cannot continue indefinitely) or is this some sort of seismic adjustment as we move from the industrial age to the AI age?
Also, is neoliberalism dead given it's failed to deliver anything but low growth for the past 20 years or so?
Living standards are falling for many.
House prices have risen faster than earnings for a long time now and housing is not properly factored into inflation which is based on home owners and not people who need to pay for where they live.
If you need to pay for the roof over your head, then living standards are for many lower than they would have been for someone comparable in the past.
The catch/irony is that Reform voters tend to be the ones insulated from house price inflation- either because they are in social housing or because they own their homes outright. (And there are about three times as many outright owners as social renters.)
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
I was thinking how I would describe the politics of this end of Ashfield (the Northern end AKA the "Nottinghamshire Funbelt" - the Southern end is merging into Nottingham) in summary. In index of deprivation terms we tend to be at about 30th percentile level from the bottom, which is way better than certain areas, and the business base has rebuilt in many ways from the post-pit-closure era.
My three words were "disengaged" and "sullen", with a measure of "cynical".
That is probably on balance too negative, and is influenced by a long period of very strange local politics, with no end in sight. In their own personal bubbles most people are OK, the housing market still works, and so on.
Why 'funbelt'?
It rhymes with "Sun Belt", and I need a humourous tick sometimes - particularly around the politics, both RefUK and Ashfield Independents. As I say, the politics are "interesting". There is a strong feeling of "things we so much X decades ago when I was a lad" from a lot of people; I'm not really convinced, having been here.
We also have a "Sun Club" aka Naturist Club, which is nearly 100 years old, though that may be just over into another area.
Burnham storms to 322 nominations for Labour leadership
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
Burnham storms to 322 nominations for Labour leadership
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
Increase the per head payment from the government to schools for pupils. As the roles drops, as a result of the demographic crisis, balance this by increasing the payment. So the schools do not see a drop in funding.
This would mean that the schools could reduce class sizes, rather than closing classes or even whole schools (when amalgamating)
It is a basic principle of Operational Research that organisation run at 99% of their capability become fragile, the workforce becomes exhausted and leaves (or starts "soldiering" - doing just enough to keep going) and the breakdowns become common. reverse this
Burnham could even size the increase to still reduce the budget for schools, while increasing the per head amount. This would satisfy the fiscal hawk types.
This would be a policy that the Labour MPs would love to vote for, The activists would love and would go down well with Labour voters. The Teaching Unions would also be happy.
It might even have an effect on the quality of schooling
#LabourPolicesFromRighties
What would you spend the additional per head money on?
Anecdotally (I don't have the research to back this up): smaller class sizes. Essentially, pay the same per class but with fewer kids in them.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Burnham storms to 322 nominations for Labour leadership
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
"I doubt there is a single person in the entire political ecosystem who thinks Reform have a chance without their frontman at the helm."
I'm far from sure about this.
Indeed: it is entirely possible Reform would be more successful with a frontman who is less ... divisive.
Most importantly, the factors driving the rise of Reform -living standards no longer rising like they used to- are true across the Western world. And across the Western world, parties like Reform have sprung up. Or, in the case of the US, the insurgents grabbed control of one of the existing parties of government.
This nails it. 'Living standards rising more slowly' is being perceived as 'living standards falling' by large chunks of the voting public across the West and they don't like it, so scapegoats (immigration, Europe, taxes etc.) are sought and quick 'fixes' lapped up.
My question is: is it inevitable that living standards continue to rise more slowly in the developed world (because... ultimately, growth cannot continue indefinitely) or is this some sort of seismic adjustment as we move from the industrial age to the AI age?
Also, is neoliberalism dead given it's failed to deliver anything but low growth for the past 20 years or so?
Living standards are falling for many.
House prices have risen faster than earnings for a long time now and housing is not properly factored into inflation which is based on home owners and not people who need to pay for where they live.
If you need to pay for the roof over your head, then living standards are for many lower than they would have been for someone comparable in the past.
The catch/irony is that Reform voters tend to be the ones insulated from house price inflation- either because they are in social housing or because they own their homes outright. (And there are about three times as many outright owners as social renters.)
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
I was thinking how I would describe the politics of this end of Ashfield (the Northern end AKA the "Nottinghamshire Funbelt" - the Southern end is merging into Nottingham) in summary. In index of deprivation terms we tend to be at about 30th percentile level from the bottom, which is way better than certain areas, and the business base has rebuilt in many ways from the post-pit-closure era.
My three words were "disengaged" and "sullen", with a measure of "cynical".
That is probably on balance too negative, and is influenced by a long period of very strange local politics, with no end in sight. In their own personal bubbles most people are OK, the housing market still works, and so on.
Why 'funbelt'?
It rhymes with "Sun Belt", and I need a humourous tick sometimes - particularly around the politics, both RefUK and Ashfield Independents. As I say, the politics are "interesting". There is a strong feeling of "things we so much X decades ago when I was a lad" from a lot of people; I'm not really convinced, having been here.
We also have a "Sun Club" aka Nudist Club, though that may be just over into another area.
I was reading far too deeply into this. I was trying to work out whether NW Notts was well known for the gaming industry or something!
Comments
He’s a favourite ‘economist’ of Zack Polanski.
We’ve noticed the slide of Reform but The Greens have also slumped too.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/jeremy-corbyns-brother-piers-stand-34265566
Braverman is so incompetent even Truss fired her.
Jenrick is chiefly famous for painting over Mickey Mouse and basically achieved fuck all as either a minister or shadow minister. Moreover he's a compulsive plotter with an ego the size of Amanda Spielman's.
Why would taking any of them back strengthen her?
In other words Kruger is desperate to remain honourable and truthful, which is commendable. whether it is in the longer run possible must be very doubtful.
As PB's Reform UK Councillor Defenestration Correspondent, there could be a lorra-lorra Independent Councillors after the dust has settled, and another lot who return to the Cons.
There could also be some more Councils controlled or lead by Independent Groups or Parties - we already have around a dozen plus usuals such as the City or the Scillies, plus some other significant groups such as Boston or Great Yarmouth. Ashfield Independents still have 31 seats from 35 here, despite one of their leaders being an established crook, and the other one due before the Crown Court (has taken several yeas to get him there FFS just due to "process").
And there are other places where there has been long term local parties - Mansfield had iirc 4 terms of a Mansfield Independent Forum Mayor in a row.
If the Boston Bypass Independents could win a controlling majority in 2010, anything could happen. Two of the originals are still there 2-0 years later under different brands.
I note that Restore Britain are up to 32 Councillors, which is not very many, but his formation has 10 more in Great Yarmouth First. I can see that working elsewhere depending how he handles himself. The comparator for Restore Britain are perhaps the BNP, who peaked at 55 Councillors, with the shiny salesman suit swapped for something from the Archers. Though Rupes is 68 and it feels as much a one man vehicle as Reform to me.
Sorry, is unleashing all my pent up psephology boring you?
I do not see why public officials should be any different.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/labour-must-stop-abusing-private-members-bills-in-parliament-b1289381.html
What shall we call this bias where you already know what VAR decided before they share it - Eurovision Voting Syndrome?
rescinded Quansah’s red cardgiven him a two match ban.Or as Anabob would put it -
C
H
A
G
O
S.
Let me guess, TWOTN has been taken to a security briefing at the Foreign Office,
#pbfreespeech
Burnham apologises for Labours initial response to Gaza and is promising a shift in approach
Good
Labour should have condemned Israel’s disproportionate response when it needed it.
“ EXCL: Andy Burnham has apologised for Labour’s initial response to Israel’s military action in Gaza, saying that the party “didn’t get it right” and needs to “do better” under his leadership, as he signals a significant shift in the UK’s approach to the Middle East.
The PM-in-waiting told me he would put more pressure on the Israeli government, including through further sanctions on individuals and entities, but also potentially by banning trade in goods with illegal settlements.
As well as pushing for substantive change on the ground, Burnham’s intervention starts to address concerns among voters on Labour’s progressive flank, many of whom have abandoned the party over its position on Israel and Palestine.
“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza my party didn’t get it right and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said.
“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.””
https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/2075251982793641999?s=61
It's really all about him.
we run 'em in, we run 'em in,
we show then we're the bold gendarmes ..
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/53923-how-would-britain-vote-at-the-start-of-2026
Whatever Reform voters are unhappy about, and it's clear that they are unhappy, in general their individual financial circumstances are often (not always, but often) comfortable enough that they have a lot less to be unhappy about than many. So we're left with the real, but much harder to fix, changes around us.
Some boil down to "if you want a better public realm, your council needs more income that it doesn't have to spend on social care- that is, taxes" or "you need to use that nice cafe in your local high street, or it will close". Others, about immigration and cultural assimilation, involve tradeoffs that we don't like to discuss, and some endpoints that people often don't want to say out loud. And some- that people get old and have to hand on the cultural baton earlier than they really want to- are intractable parts of being human.
I don’t think England have always played brilliantly this World Cup, though Jude and Harry have been consistently on the money.. I think there’s legitimate questions about Tuchel’s squad picks. Despite their record in the stadium, largely built by different teams and better players, Mexico certainly lacked quality on the night - the occasion and pressure had got to Mexico who lacked composure throughout.
It is through an active travel lens, and sis nearly an hour, but they note that he spent political capital on the Clean Air Zone and then gave up (unlike London), and likes to get just what he has asked for (he may walk away if he does not).
"Moving Up North: Andy Burnham's Active Travel Legacy in Greater Manchester"
It is nearly 55 minutes, but is in a number of chapter. The last 15 minutes may be of interest.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iosuRLoRp98ghZ5RKxHD9
I think that AB will choose a couple of areas for focus, and needs good Cabinet Ministers who can be left and trusted to do their thing effectively most of the time. As I see it, that was a David Cameron pattern.
An insight into mind of a very selfish man.
But does a comment like that matter a jot or register at all to his base of supporters?
He said: "As you probably know they banned handguns in the late 90s because there was a murder up in Dunblane."
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
"So, everybody, my father used to shoot pistols for Oxford University and he had, he's dead now bless him, but he had all his pistols were taken away, the pistols he used to shoot with at Oxford University."
The family of Emma Crozier, who was shot dead in the tragedy, criticised the Restore Britain leader.
Speaking to Sky News, her brother Jack Crozier said: "Rupert Lowe's father had his pistols taken away. My father had his daughter taken away.
"He knew exactly what happened at Dunblane. He made an active choice, on one of the world's biggest podcasts, to describe the massacre of 16 five and six-year-old children and their teacher as 'one murder'.
"The people of Great Yarmouth need to seriously consider if this is who they want representing them."
https://news.sky.com/story/fury-as-restore-britain-leader-rupert-lowe-describes-dunblane-tragedy-as-one-murder-13561888
The 97 landslide
The 17 surprise
Obama 08
Trump out in 20
All of these would be topped by Nigel Farage being beaten (his career therefore ended) by Count Binface in Clacton. The thought of him up there on the stage conceding to the Bin ... I mean, cmon. It would be simply unimprovable. If it happens we might as well call it a day. There would be little point carrying on.
But for that very reason I think it cannot happen. It would be the most excruciating public humiliation of a politician ever seen, so if Farage gets wind that such a thing is possible he will find a way to withdraw.
And it seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss an officer on that basis, because you don't have to have committed a crime to be considered unsuitable for a job. Simply being too much of an arsehole will prevent you being hired by most people if it is known beforehand, and whilst it is harder to get fired, such behaviour being revealed when in post is going to have consequences.
Very stupid of him to go anywhere near that subject, but it's absolutely possible he didn't mean to minimise it. Not exactly media trained.
Which is why I wouldn't expect it.
I'd love to know to what extent Farage discussed his decision to force a by-election with Tice, Jenrick and others. Did he just tell them it was happening? Did they agree it was a good idea?
Especially if you are in a public-facing role.
It's mad some people in Britain vote on this shit, but they do.
If he's carefully parsing his words to leave out the inconvenient things so he does not have to address them or confront his moral convictions, then I'd say he was desperate to appear honourable rather than be honourable.
Which, of course, is a quite dishonourable thing to do, as it means you utilising an honourable image to imply certain things are acceptable without saying so.
That's fine, everyone is a bit morally grey in politics, but I don't think Kruger can rely on on reputation for honesty and morality if he will dissemble like anyone else.
But you're wrong to say he didn't mean to minimise it - that's precisely what he set out to do by bringing up that example, worsened by the fact he hasn't come up out with a excuse yet.
Then got upset when Dave didn't give him his old job back.
It meant that Davis didn't become Home Secretary in 2010, that role being taken by Theresa May. This made it much more likely that May became PM in 2016. And her inept handling of Brexit while PM led to a hard Brexit.
It's incredibly crass and insensitive, and there are many other ways to express opposition to the handgun ban without belittling Dunblane, but I am not sure it's inaccurate.
Today at Marlborough sorting office, the official line was that it was a “warm” day
When it’s officially “hot” (when the Amber heat warning extends to us), we only have to deliver half of the letters, so we walk much less
But the Met Office has decided that 34°C in the shade doesn’t warrant a heat warning, so we had to deliver the full round
My fan assisted ovan (sic) was cooking me today
Thank god I have five of the next six days off
Had Rogan not tried to clarify I could believe it was just a slip and given the benefit of the doubt.
The anti Reformers out there need to accept that if they start imploding it’s good news for the Tories . The country can survive another Tory government it won’t survive Reform IMO .
Others might disagree but that’s where I’m at .
Rogan interjected, asking "One murder?"
Mr Lowe replied: "One murder.
My three words were "disengaged" and "sullen", with a measure of "cynical".
That is probably on balance too negative, and is influenced by a long period of very strange local politics, with no end in sight. In their own personal bubbles most people are OK, the housing market still works, and so on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3gdj300lyo
But don't look at the second and third pictures if you don't want to cry. I saw them just after collected my 5 year old grandchild from school.
Reform 34%
Lab 25%
Con 15%
Lib Dems 11%
Greens 9%
Restore 0%
Ipsos June 2026
Reform 26% (down 8%)
Restore 3% (+3%)
So no.
Nobody said I was wrong.
Andy Burnham has secured 322 nominations from Labour MPs to be the next party leader on the first day of the leadership contest process.
He is just one nomination short of securing enough so that no other candidate could secure the 81 backers necessary to proceed to the next stage of the contest.
No other MP has been nominated.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-burnham-starmer-labour-tories-badenoch-farage-12593360
The absolute tease.
We also have a "Sun Club" aka Naturist Club, which is nearly 100 years old, though that may be just over into another area.
Our classes have been creeping up (from 30 in top sets and about 18-20 in bottom sets up to 34/35 in top sets and 26/27 in bottom sets).
The difference in the quality of individual instruction when 5 or 6 kids are out for whatever reason is remarkable.
Laziness, or someone just wanting the opportunity to disavow responsibility if he turns out not to be great.