POLITICS CORNER

[Tripps]

More evidence of the PM's plight. From the 'Comments section' elsewhere. My view is that there's always the possibility that he remains a closet Marxist, and wishes the collapse of the nation, and it is all done by intention. Ably assisted by Mr Milliband and his hasty net zero nonsense.

It's hard to imagine there are still those who have stopped seeing what's in front of them, and would never not vote Labour.

Good piece by Allister Heath in the DT - I think Starmer will be long remembered as the PM that almost completely destroyed the UK.

"Time’s almost up for Keir Starmer. He is finished. He no longer has any real friends or allies, having sacrificed them all for the sake of prolonging his time in office by a few days. He has broken almost every promise he made, lied repeatedly and exposed himself as a hypocrite. He seems to care little about policy or detail or people, and has utterly failed to articulate, let alone impose, a vision for Britain. Few know what he stands for. He looks miserable and despondent, a grey man animated only by his unusual skill at internal Labour poliGood ticking. He is a living embodiment of what happens when extreme moral arrogance collides with the reality of being a Labour apparatchik in 2026.

He has destroyed the Labour Party for no noticeable benefit to anybody other than himself. He has ruined the economy. He has failed to reform the public sector and the NHS, or to reverse the housing construction crisis, which are supposedly areas where only Labour can act. His obsession with international and human rights law over Chagos and immigration has exposed Britain to global ridicule. He has accelerated the demise of our under-funded Armed Forces, while simultaneously intensifying the deranged lawfare campaign against them.

Elected on the grounds that he backed “working people”, he has further crippled “alarm clock Britain” for the benefit of growing legions of welfare-dependent adults who should be in work. He has betrayed every culturally conservative group in Britain, from private school parents to eurosceptics to farmers to the entirety of the petite bourgeoisie and aspirational working class. Far from applauding him, his erstwhile base among the far-Left, environmental extremists, the urban precariat, woke and anti-Western fanatics are, at best, bitterly disappointed and, at worst, furious with Starmer, a failed PM who must feel he can never catch a break.

He has backed Britain’s first wealth tax, but this disastrous policy has merely whetted Left-wing appetite for full-on socialism, if not proto-communism. He claimed that we would serve as a bridge with America, but his relationship with Trump has broken down. He pledged that he would respect Brexit, but has been rapidly reversing it (though not by enough to placate the Centrist Dads). He has turned against Israel, though not viciously enough for Green maniacs, and is sucking up to China. His time in office has been a complete, unmitigated disaster.

Inertia appears to be the only reason why Labour has, so far, only lost around half of an already emaciated 2024 electorate. It has further to fall. Technical problems relating to his successors – one of them isn’t an MP, another has yet to fix her tax problems – is a central reason why he is still in office; others include the incompetence, cowardice, short-term self-interest and generalised stupidity of his MPs, who are marching towards electoral oblivion.

Yet even the lemmings are finally getting it. The Mandelson scandal was the last straw. Something has changed in the putrid air of Westminster, and it’s not just the stench of panicky Labour MPs. One can smell plotters everywhere.

Starmer’s time in No 10 is coming to an end. Barring a miracle, he will go down as the shortest-tenured Labour PM in British history, failing even to catch up with Gordon Brown. It will be richly deserved, for rarely, if ever, has a man been this unsuited to the second highest office of State (after the King, that is).

None of Starmer’s last-ditch attempts at delaying the inevitable will succeed. He hopes the King’s visit to the US will boost his popularity. It won’t. He will seek to weaponise Britain’s dislike of Trump: he jumped on reports that the administration may be mulling backing Argentina’s claim over the Falklands. He will blame the war in Iran for the ongoing cost of living crisis, seeking to deflect from his own blunders, tax hikes and growth-killing measures. It won’t work either. He may seek to appease some on the Right of his party: he claimed on Friday that he would finally begin the process of banning the IRGC in the next Parliament. He hopes that the Home Secretary’s efforts on immigration will reduce small boat arrivals.

None of this will make any meaningful difference to his prospects. The council elections in England, and the elections in Wales and Scotland, will be a historic disaster for Labour. It will almost cease to be a national party. When the results come in, and the enormity of the catastrophe becomes apparent, Labour MPs will finally turn on Starmer. Will he uselessly seek to cling on? Will he bow to the inevitable? Will he negotiate a six-month exit? What is sure is that when he does depart, Starmer will fade into obscurity faster and more comprehensively than any previous Prime Minister. He will be neither missed, nor even remembered".




PS I heard a news bulletin on LBC where the first item was about Trump's two man delegation going to Islamabad to negotiate with the Iranians.

The last item in a three or four minute bulletin was a news flash that 'breaking news - they would not be going'.

Impossible to keep up. I shan't bother to try.

[Stanley]

That's a bleak assessment of Starmer David but I can't fault it. I share your disgust at Milliband's actions. (Which will have more and more damaging effects as the economic situation worsens...)
Your news flash about delegates is correct, I shall cover it in 'Seen in the news.'

Have a look at THIS assessment from Laura Kuenssberg.....
"We're living the dream," a minister jokes. Labour might have to rely on black humour over the next couple of weeks. Each day brings a vast set of elections closer - local tests in England, and national ballots in Wales and Scotland - votes that another cabinet minister frets "will be a disaster". We've been travelling around Wales this week, and Scotland last week, talking to the politicians vying for power, and the most important people of all - the public who'll make the choice on 7 May. Just when Labour needs to be going hammer and tongs in a campaign, instead, almost every day brings fresh embarrassment to the prime minister over his decision to give Lord Mandelson one of the finest jobs in the land - our man in Washington. Ructions in Whitehall. Rancour in Labour. A sense the government doesn't seem to have a grip. How big is the impact in Wales and Scotland of Sir Keir Starmer's woes? "It's just so huge," says a senior Labour MP who's been knocking on voters' doors in recent days. But these elections aren't remotely all about the government's recent horror show - we'll come to that in a second. Voters will decide who makes important devolved decisions affecting the lives of millions of people - the kind of schools kids go to; the standard of the care patients receive when they are sick; even income tax rates. Both the Labour administration in Cardiff and the SNP government in Edinburgh have been in charge for a remarkably long time - Labour since 1999, the SNP since 2007. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that voters we met in both countries expressed a similar level of disillusion with the status quo, frustration with a patchy track record on public services, and a sense devolution itself has not been all it was cracked up to be. The two countries are poised to make very different decisions on what's next
There is much more and I think i's worth taking note of.....

[Stanley]

See THIS report from Starmerland....
Sir Keir Stamer has insisted the "vast majority" of Labour MPs supported him and wanted him to continue doing his job as prime minister. He was speaking to the Sunday Times, external at the end of a week in which speculation about a potential leadership challenge has risen. Sir Keir told the paper "in politics, you get this sort of thing all of the time, there is always talk". Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the prime minister should resign over his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US, adding that Labour MPs should "develop a backbone and get rid of him" if he did not step down. Philp told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that some ministers were "equivocating" over Sir Keir's future and that a couple of MPs were publicly calling on him to go. He said it was in "the national interest" for MPs to remove the prime minister.

[Stanley]

MORE Starmer woe....
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a vote by MPs on whether there should be a parliamentary investigation over his claims about the vetting of Lord Mandelson. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said he was allowing a debate on the matter on Tuesday and it would then be up to MPs to decide if the Privileges Committee should hold an inquiry. The prime minister has denied accusations he misled MPs over whether Lord Mandelson's vetting to be the UK's ambassador to the US followed "due process" and over his assertion that "no pressure whatsoever" was applied to officials at the Foreign Office. Sir Keir branded the move a "stunt" by the Conservatives and hinted he could order Labour MPs to vote against. Addressing a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday evening, Sir Keir also told his MPs: "Tomorrow is pure politics and we need to stand together against it." The BBC understands Labour MPs are likely to be whipped to vote down the Conservative motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee rather than being given a free vote. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Sir Keir had misled Parliament "multiple times" on the subject. She urged Labour MPs to "look into their consciences" and back an inquiry by the Privileges Committee. A Downing Street spokesperson said the claims from the Conservatives "have no substance" and the government is "engaging with the two parliamentary processes that are already running" on Lord Mandelson's appointment "with full transparency". These include: the requirement to publish documents related to Lord Mandelson's appointment through a procedure known as a humble address; and the Foreign Affairs Committee holding evidence sessions to assess the vetting process.

[Whyperion]

I cannot agree with the DT that allowing in work / working age benefits to increase and also increasing taxation (a bit) is any reason for low(er) economic growth. Benefits - to those that need them - are not easy to claim and are barely enough to cover basic living needs ( that being in work also results in much the same perhaps says a lot about the economics of brexit and a long term failed tory governance ). Cutting the size of the state, in itself creates no immediate improvement ( see US and is appaling health care system ). But daily real jobs are going seeming at a faster rate than under Thatcher, often due to a lack of demand for products (over priced) Employers NHI costs ( yes maybe money has to come from somewhere but its not the correct place - it should have been , despite being politically wrong , some small higher levels of income tax ), and an over priced and totally wrong energy market. There has not been enough nationalisation - the opportunity was squandered under Darling/Brown and not acted on now. Water, Electricty and Gas should be under the control of Govt (rail is and there is no really improvement as the treasury still has wrong rules and misses investment for public good all wrong but that is for another day).

King Charles (speech modified re gun attack on Trump) speech we should note due today , is a Speech to Congress in the light of 250 years of Independence of the American Colonies, and not necessarily a reposte to Trump as a President in itself.

[Stanley]

See THIS report on Starmer and Parliament yesterday.....
2 hours ago
There can be moments of high jeopardy in Parliament when Westminster holds its breath to await the outcome of a crucial debate that could determine a government's future. In the end this didn't feel like one of them, but that doesn't mean Sir Keir Starmer has escaped unscathed. Ultimately he won the vote pretty comfortably with a clear majority of MPs rejecting the idea that he should be referred to a parliamentary committee for investigation over his statements about Lord Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador. But beyond the headline win, this was not a victorious moment.

[Stanley]

See THIS report about Farage and funding.....
Nigel Farage received £5m from Reform UK mega donor Christopher Harborne before he became an MP, it has emerged. In an interview with The Telegraph, external, the Reform UK leader said he had been given the money to pay for personal protection "so that I would be safe and secure for the rest of my life". He also told the newspaper his home had been targeted last year in a firebomb attack. Labour and the Conservatives have both accused Farage of breaking Commons rules by not declaring the £5m gift in the register of interests, with the Tories saying they had referred the Reform leader to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Harborne, a British cryptocurrency investor who lives in Thailand, last year donated £9m to Reform UK - the biggest single donation to a UK political party by a living person. In total, the businessman gave £12m to Reform in 2025 and has donated to the Conservatives in the past. The separate £5m gift to Farage, also reported by The Guardian, external, came in early 2024, Reform sources told the BBC, and it does not appear on his MP register of interests. Labour Party chair Anna Turley said Farage "appears to have broken the rules again by failing to declare this cash from his billionaire backer". Conservative party chair Kevin Hollinrake said that as a new MP, he should have declared the gift, adding: "Why does Reform think the rules don't apply to them? "This stinks and Reform should come clean now."
Nice work if you can get it.....

[Stanley]

See THIS BBC report for another thing to worry about.....
Published
1 hour ago
Britain must not keep changing prime ministers, Sir John Major has warned in a broadside at those who treat politics as a "game show" while leaving big problems to the next generation. The former Conservative prime minister accused today's focus-group obsessed politicians of thinking their job was to "provide fodder for the media and project your own career" while delaying action on complex issues like healthcare, pensions and climate change. In an interview for BBC Radio 5 Live and Newsnight, he said: "The best aphrodisiac in politics is hope. If people can see a change, there's a change in atmosphere." He said he felt "very strongly" that the reluctance to make difficult arguments on big issues "demeans politics". Without a new generation of young people who value public service being willing to enter politics, "we are in deep doodah", he added. Sir John was Conservative prime minister from 1990-97, winning the 1992 election with the most votes ever recorded for a British political party. Three years later he faced down internal party division, challenging his rivals to "put up or shut up" He defeated Tory MP John Redwood in a ballot of his MPs. Some have suggested Sir Keir Starmer, rumoured to be under pressure from rivals like Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting, might do the same. Sir John said: "The fate of individual politicians doesn't really matter as much as the development of the right policy. "I mean, it isn't a good idea to keep changing prime ministers. I think it is an idea to have a limited number of years. I think the Americans who have two terms of a president and then stop. I think that is sensible."
Is it just me or is John Major talking a lot of sense now he is retired..... ?

[Stanley]

See THIS report on Polanski's apology....
Zack Polanski has apologised for sharing a social media post condemning the actions of police officers who arrested the suspect in the Golders Green attack. The Green Party leader had reposted a message on X accusing officers of "repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by Taser". In a statement on Friday, Polanski apologised for "sharing a tweet in haste", adding that he should not have commented on the police response via social media. Sir Keir Starmer branded the decision to share the post "disgraceful", in a BBC interview recorded before Polanski's apology. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme in an interview to be broadcast on Saturday, Sir Keir said he had met the officers involved in the arrest. He added that in the circumstances, you could understand why the officers acted in the way that they did. "There's a guy on the ground, he's got a rucksack on. And I don't know what was going through the mind of those officers, but if I was there, I'd be thinking, he's going to detonate something. He's going to blow me up and everybody around here," the prime minister added. "In those circumstances, I think you can quite see why what could have gone through their mind is, we need to do whatever we can to disable this guy." Polanski hit back at the PM's criticisms in a post on X, saying: "Today the prime minister uses his office to attack the only Jewish party leader to score political points."
Can you remember the days before the advent of social media when there was no way of venting hastily formed opinions?