Not the first to make this point. But there is a tyrant in charge of another country who is accused of being heavily linked to a paedophile sex ring - and supposed ‘patriots’ in this country are passionately willing him to take down our national broadcaster. Madness.

For the record - seen as a couple of people have made a point of telling me they have unfollowed me - I'll post my views on Labour and Starmer and if you don't like my reasonably polite opinions all things Labour- as a member- you should hear what voters are saying.

Its notable how we're not reallt trying to make a policy arguement here - its entirely political: 'we must do this, or Reform will win and do worse.' The same broad error that was made with the PIP cuts. And the same result, i suspect: the policy dissolves on contact with the PLP

If you're an MP who is really unhappy with the government's latest immigration offering why would you support it when you know your PM is weak and is likely to be facing a leadership challenge within a year?

Missed of the "hero" before the rail worker there, Sky. I hope he gets the help and support he needs and is honoured by our country at the earliest opportunity. news.sky.com/story/rail-w...

I think I've been dumped by someone I've never met and don't know because I've criticised Starmer. It really is *personal* to these people and I'll admit it I genuinely can't get my head around people feeling like that about any politician they've never met and don't know, let alone Starmer.

Starmer is showing no signs of learning any lessons in fact the opposite. I only arrived at this position this week after he managed to create his own leadership crisis out of thin air - but next year, probably after May, we need to get rid. He's not capable of governing or beating Reform.

I have given Labour the benefit of the doubt numerous times but this is simply repulsive.

Keir Starmer doesn't believe in this really. I know this, you know this, his MPs know this and Reform curious voters know this. Utterly pointless and self defeating and actually is an example why he's unpopular. A lot of voters think he says stuff he doesn't belive in, imv.

Visited family in Carlise today and one side of the city square were around 20 people with England flags - patriots otherwise known as racists - and the other around 60 anti racism protestors. Struck me how pathetic the flag shaggers looked. The counter people were playing music and laughing.

Whatever one thinks about the current PM, this "crisis of rhetoric" cuts across politics.

Whether they benefit *enough* is where the 'can they get better at governing?' becomes so important:

No names, no packdrill. But I'm increasingly losing patience with people who decry X and yet normalise its used by providing it with content.

If one assumes Starmer will be gone after May, then the more they try to appeal to the right now, the more that leadership election is going to be about tacking back. (Especially if the Greens do well in London and other cities).

Ofc the public don't want to pay more taxes we didn't need a poll to tell us that. The political bravery is to accept the public don't get to write a budget and politicians should do what they know is right, lead on that and campaign on the positive effects if those choices at the next election.

The actual anti-Starmer posting on here comes from people who are incredibly worried about what comes after.

Replies to this are a good case for why the lobby system absolutely doesn’t work in the 21st century. It is the standard practice of government to brief stories from unnamed sources. *Official briefings* come from unnamed sources. But a sizeable subset of the public thinks unnamed means made up.

A chart from "The British General Election of 2024" (out soon!) which is relevant to this debate - here's what voters wanted (black line) and what they though Labour (red) and Cons (blue) would do on tax and spend during the campaign. Higher figures = "put them up". Some important lessons here 1/?

This is the bottom line on getting credit for not increasing taxes. There won't be any.

The question for Labour is can you genuinely avoid putting up taxes on "working people"? If the answer is no, then the question becomes 'how do you do this in the least economically harmful, least inflationary, and that best places you to do a nice budget in 2028 and 2029?'

Look I do actually support the Labour Party, but my head is genuinely failing to cope with the pro Starmer posts on here. On the one hand it's genuinely hilarious on the other, eh?

Maybe tax and spend policy shouldn't be based on what the opinion polls tell us the public would be prepared to support (taxes on other people) and actually should be based on what is necessary to run a functioning economy while improving living standards. 🤷‍♂️

Was tax the thing that actually came up most in focus groups? I'd say it was cost of living and public services? Yes, the tax pledge is a big thing to break but what about the other two?

This is very good news - and we should be shouting about it from the rooftops. A properly positive step forward

Me reading your this always the plan from Starmer and Reeves posts this morning.

Rachel Reeves literally held a press conference in front of the media and TV cameras to lay the ground for increases in income tax. If it wasn't she would have denied it when she was given the opportunity to. At the press conference. She arranged. To lay the ground. For income tax rises.

Increasingly likely that "all pain, no gain" will be the title of the post-mortem of this government.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are strategic masterminds. It's not their fault that a feral media can't understand/ won't understand The Plan is working. Change is here. I'll post a long list of our achievements once I've taken my medication...

Massive move in gilts on open. Looks like giving up almost half the gains from the last month. Terrible

The top of the Labour Party has the political skills of a breezeblock.

If Starmer and Reeves are not going to increase income tax we might as well replace them with another Leader/Chancellor who also won't increase broad taxes but will actually know how to do politics.

The combination of needing to raise at least *£30bn* and deciding to try and do this via nickle and dime measures is utterly toxic. The pastry tax on speed.

What is wrong with these people. They just spent two weeks rolling the pitch for a U-turn on a policy they didn’t even do yet?

The one thing I had left with Starmer and Reeves was the sense that finally we were seeing a bit of political bravery with tax rises. We could change things for the better, spend money and get inflation down - a positive story for the next election. But no, bottled it, so it seems.

You take away income tax rises and you take away your ability to build a positive narrative for 2029, instead leaving yourself entirely at the mercy of events and hoping something just turns up. Given the size of the government's majority and what's at stake at the next GE, that is unforgivable.

Why seek political office if you have a stonking majority and you use it to…endlessly fret about losing your majority rather than running a country? It’s no good. There is no theory for how to make things better. It’s not even well managed decline.

By the way if Starmer and Reeves are not putting up income tax you're kidding yourself if you think a new Labour leader would. Which one of the candidates has acknowledged that reality then? Not our Wes or Andy. None of them have.

I'm sure getting rid of the cycle to work scheme will make up the difference here. Smart move 👌

Anyway in other news here's a picture of a heron that spent some time fishing by my boat the other day (just stumbled on the pic).

I've been a member of Labour for 20 years- with a gap when Corbyn was in power - and I've been broadly supportive of the government but I'm sorry if you think it's disloyal or I'm being 'hoodwinked' by the msm when I criticse obvious failings in the government you need to give your head a wobble

And Starmer's problem - rightly or wrongly - has always been people *don't know* what he actually believes.

Labour will get round to having a woman leader/PM once we've worked through all the 'highly competent' men we have on the list first. It's a very long list, I'm afraid 🙄

Feels like Starmer's team - and the man himself, tbf - really have lost a lot of people who were not particularly set on seeing him go. There's only so many times people demand you get a grip before the chat changes to get a new leader.

Whether he goes or not the problem Starmer has is he delegates his politics to others because he doesn't see it as important. But it is. Politics gets your MPs to hold their noses and vote your legislation through, it gets the media 'outriders' batting for you, it tells the public what your *for*...

"It's structural" "would any of the replacements be better?" - it really is just this simple, that the government would be better if it had a prime minster.

They were being integrated with the mayor role anyway so this makes total sense. No need for a separate function. Helps build up mayors as the single tier of regional government.

There must be deliveries of rakes arriving 24/7 at Number 10

It's bloody hard to get rid of a Labour leader let alone a Labour PM so I suspect if it happens it's because Starmer resigns. Otherwise, still think it's likely he stays on (wether that's the right decision is up for debate, I guess).

Nothing will change for Labour until the PM, the Chief of Staff and the Comms director understand the modern media environment. ‘Quietly getting on with the job’ ended years ago.

Well this sounds like a very bad idea and would give Labour a lot ammunition to attack the tories with just as they are making difficult decisions on tax. So very on brand for Badenoch.