RayC

Callaghan's government was forced from office early because it lost a vote of 'no confidence' not because of public pressure. This government has a majority of 160+. Labour MPs are not going to support an opposition 'No confidence' motion no matter how unpopular Starmer may be. The bottom line is this (Labour) government will decide if an election is held before 2029.

Well, when you put it like that ....

With a majority of +/-160 in the Commons how will the Labour party be forced from office before 2029? A partly rhetorical question: The only way is if they decide that calling an election up to 12 months earlier gives them a better chance of re-election.

I'd agree with that apart from two points. Firstly, I'm not sure that UK politicians are held to a higher standard than those in the US. Imo much of a muchness. Secondly, it doesn't appear that the vetting was particularly lax, more that it was ignored when appointing Mandelson. @Yagoda You might like to watch the attached video which gives the full exchange between Starmer and Badenoch (the leader of the Opposition). It gives the full context behind this particular issue and shows how Prime Minister's Questions - which happens every week when Parliament sits - works (Not usually this interesting, mind). https://news.sky.com/video/in-full-starmer-and-badenoch-clash-over-mandelson-13503198

The source is 'The Daily Express' which has long since lost the license to call itself a newspaper. As usual, the headline bears no relationship to the actual story.

Re the racist slur directed towards Brexit supporters. While there is no data, I don't doubt that +/-100% of racists/ xenophobes - who could be bothered to vote - voted Brexit. However, it doesn't logically follow that all Brexit supporters are racists/ xenophobes? I agree that Brexit supporters come in all shapes, sizes, colour, sexual orientation and probably any other variable so, yes, it is unfair to label Brexit supporters as racist. Re Brexit not yet being implemented: Yes it has. This is what the Withdrawal Agreement looks like in practice. I'll issue the same challenge to you that I issue to everyone who uses this as an excuse for Brexit's failure: What does the 'Real Brexit' look like? How would it it differ in practice to what we have now? What does "cosying up to the EU again" mean in practice and how is it " ..fraught with danger"?

There is absolutely no truth that I supported the cover up of the appalling grooming gangs. You are now reduced to lying. As if further proof was needed that you have no shame . Playing the victim again. I participated in this thread to highlight your distasteful use of a report about rape in order to promote your misplaced sense of grievance. Lazy connotations? That's rich coming from the bloke who's every post usually contains a lament or two about 'Two Tier Kier', 'Diversity is our friend' or similar slogans. You just can't help yourself, can you? (Yes, this fellow does seem like a nasty piece of work).

It's taken you three posts to even mention the alleged crimes so spare me the faux outrage about your concern for the victims. You clearly have no shame.

I don't need to read the minds of others. Most people possess an attitribte called (good) morals. Sadly you are one of the exceptions. Don't try that. You are the one trying to make mileage of a rape case for your own misplaced sense of victimhood. Et viola. I rest my case. I could have but given that I know nothing about this case or the Norwegian royal family, why would I? To state that rape is a terrible crime goes without saying. (Almost) everyone realises that without me reminding them. It's not obsession, John. It's simply that I don't think that your odious bile should be allowed to go unchallenged.

I'm just stating what the overwhelming majority of posters on this board are thinking. If this fellow is guilty of rape then he deserves everything that he gets. That applies irrespective of whether he is Prince or pauper. However, you are right. Your original post was not worthy of a response. My bad.

Only you could turn a report about a rape trial into a platform for your misplaced sense of grievance.

@JonnyF : You posted a link to Reform's wish list of policy initiatives in another thread. By my reckoning, all but 3 of the 19 policy headlines could have appeared in a brochure of any of the other UK political parties. There is little of substance there. Reform might argue that we are 2+ years away from an election and that detail will be developed over that time which is fair enough. However, what detail there is seems to need further explanation. For example, in order to stop the boats, the UK will leave the ECHR as though that it is a 'cure all'. We will also go down the Rwanda road again and deport any illegal migrants found to those countries but there is no indication of the cost and logistics involved. In addition, those found in the channel will be denied entry. Where will they go? I doubt that France will accept that situation without compaint. I assume that I must have read this incorrectly but the UK will not be st any international court's jurisdiction. Again, if there is a trade dispute between the UK and France (the EU) and the WTO finds in favour of the EU, I guess that the French will just give a Gallic shrug and mutter something about, 'Les Anglais', under their breath. Yes, a lot more substance needed before any serious person would throw their lot in with Reform.

Ah the Strawman cometh yet again. I imagine that 'The Gaslighter' won't be too far behind him. What have you actually said, John? It's usually something along the lines of, 'Diversity is our friend'; 'The EU is corrupt'; 'Starmer is a traitor'; 'The indigenous British male has been betrayed', etc. Vacuous statements with little, if any, evidence to support them. It's impossible to engage you in anything like serious discussion.

EU - bad; Immigration - bad; Labour - bad; Starmer - traitor; Muslims - terrorists; Trump - hero; Farage - saviour; Reform - great; Brexit - wonderful, etc, etc. No nuance. Everything is black (bad) and white (good; especially the newly discovered shade of 'British indigenous white'). What was that you were saying about predictability, Jonathan?

Unfortunately the article is behind a pay wall. However, if Farage is promising to reverse any changes to our existing relationship with the EU without even knowing what those changes might be, then I'll have to reconsider my belief that he is not an idiot.

Actually this supports another of your propositions i.e. that Starmer is useless: Labour spent "only" £134m on this measure in 2024-25; the Tories spent £191m in 2022-23. Maybe it's a conspiracy and all the UK political parties - except Reform of course - are in on this " .. plan to destroy the fabric of the UK"? On the other hand, the most likely explanation is that your proposition is a load of old Tom. You're right about some people having their heads in the clouds, mind.

So an initiative/ piece of legislation which proves beneficial to the UK should be curtailed/ retracted on purely philosophical grounds I.e. because it is inconsistent with Brexit? Notwithstanding the fact - as posts in this thread have illustrated - that there is no one single vision of Brexit, that still strikes me as the height of stupidity.

Good to see that Reform have (finally) come up with a wishlist of policies. At first glance, it seems like it would be possible to enact all those policies - with the exception of the one relating to immigration - from within the EU. Given that 'The Single Market' did a pretty good job of regulating Labour market demand and supply, perhaps there would be no need for that particular policy? Ah well?

I would obviously have voted 'Remain' if given the chance and there are some statements where I disagree with you e.g. that the EU is (was?) a" fundamentally undemocratic putative European State". However that said, your reply is a refreshingly balanced and well-reasoned response. I agree entirely with your first paragraph. My question asking whether all Brexiters wanted to sever all ties with the EU was rhetorical (although I accept that it might not read that way). As you infer, the answer is, of course, 'No'. At the risk of misinterpreting your position, your vision of what Brexit might constitute e.g. constructive engagement with the EU, seems a long way from 'The spirit of Brexit' espoused by @JonnyF and I'm still no closer to understanding what that is meant to be.

Again, what does that actually mean? The EU is failing: On a number of levels it is. Europe as a whole (including the UK) is a fading power. Growth is slower than other countries. Welfare provision is under pressure. Europe's importance in the world is being eroded. The list goes on. The question remains how will separating ourselves from Europe improve the UK's prospects? What policies need to be enacted to slow the decline? The EU is corrupt: In what way? Unfortunately there are corrupt individuals working in the EU institutions just as there are in the UK's political and civil institutions. If you are implying that the EU is institutionally corrupt then you need offer more evidence. The EU is a federalist project: Undoubtedly there are those who do see it this way but the governments of most EU member states do not support federalism. Until that changes there will not be a European federal state. The nonsense about jobs in Davos and Starmer's treachery is just utter drivel.

What exactly is this 'spirit of Brexit' in practical terms? A complete severing of all links with the EU? Is that what all Brexiters voted for?

If Farage were to promise that then he would be an idiot (which I don't think he is). It would be the height of stupidity to promise to reverse legislation irrespective of whether it was beneficial or not. Your suggestion reminds me of the equally idiotic promise made by certain Brexiters prior to the referendum to have a 'bonfire of EU regulation'. Again, only fools would make such promises without analysing whether the individual legislation was beneficial.

How about a bridge instead? Maybe he could ask that nice Mr. Khan if he could buy London Bridge?

Clearly Israel is incapable of doing anything wrong in your eyes.

You and your British friends are in the minority. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53913-where-do-britons-stand-on-europes-relationship-with-the-usa