Forum menu
An interesting story in Eye this week on the source of the RR scandal.
Troll call
Meanwhile, who to believe on the expense-fiddling allegations dating back to Reeves's time working at HBOS in Leeds?The story was initially put out on LinkedIn by former HBOS executive Kev Gillett, who was cited as a credible source because of his senior position in the bank. His CV shows he was "managing director, Bank of Scotland Business Banking" between December 2002 and August 2007, before later working on the bank's merger with Lloyds TSB.
This period marked the collapse of HBOS, later subject of a damning report from the parliamentary commission on banking standards titled "An Accident Waiting to Happen". Among its findings was that the bank's "culture was brash".
That would have suited Gillett. Unmentioned in reports were the words in his post after the chancellor's dobbing-in: "Now she is robbing people who've worked hard. Now she is ruining every agricultural family. Evil evil socialists."
Not that he need worry: "Thank F I live in [Portugal] and I've 77p in my [UK] pension. F the socialists," he adds – it escaping him for a moment that it was "the socialists" who bailed out his wrecked bank.
The charming Gillett can also be found dismissing people whose CVs he doesn't like as "Johnny Bullshit" and lamenting from the Algarve how the UK appears "some alien world, reported on by weird angsty, jealous, puerile journalists (aka couldn't get a real job)". That'll be the hacks now making him famous.
Yep even when they go so far economically right they still get called socialists by bankers and oligarchs, yet they still try and pander to them and go even further right. It's an abusive relationship where they will never get the love they crave until they break the repeated pattern and actually do something different.
I think we might be seeing a by-election soon which will be remembered for a very long time.
It is likely to confirm a spectacular collapse in support for Labour and an unprecedented rise in support for Reform UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/24/suspended-labour-mp-mike-amesbury-sentenced-assault
As Amesbury’s sentence is less than a year, he is allowed to continue as an independent MP during any appeals he might make, but if those appeals are unsuccessful he would then be subject to a recall petition.
The petition would be open for six weeks and 10% of voters in his constituency would need to sign it to remove Amesbury as MP. If the threshold is met it would trigger a byelection.
At the last general election Reform UK came second in the constituency
The ramping up of arms expenditure that Squeaky Starmer is proposing will coincide with a commensurate cut in expenditure on health and education. Rachel's 'fiscal rules', innit.
At the last general election Reform UK came second in the constituency
Amesbury got 22,000 and 53% of the vote and Jason Moorcroft (the Reform candidate) got 7,500 and 18% of the vote.
To be clear it's not so much that we're okay with military spending - it's the fact that they claim there is no cash for much of anything else.
The wealth effect of military spending clearly has a multiplier but spending on infrastructure would have a much larger effect as well as fixing the mess we have in our domestic lives. Should be the priority.
It's not an either or situation with government spending. The first thing they need to ask about military spending is are the resources actually available? What space is being made for those resources to go to the military instead of an other things?
Keynes' How to Pay for the War - is not about the funding it's about the resource space needed to be created to allow it to happen. What do we go without in terms of resources?
Irrespective; we are getting shafted again on energy - Labour and ofgem will stand there hands-crossed and say there's nothing we can do. (Despite promising lower bills).
There's now too many institutions not really part of the democratic process (BoE, Ofgem, OBR) that effectively control the price structure of the UK.
They need dismantling as they absolutely do not serve us and simply allow the government arms length control.
(That's not going to happen currently.)
Amesbury got 22,000 and 53% of the vote and Jason Moorcroft (the Reform candidate) got 7,500 and 18% of the vote.
Yes I had checked which is why I said we might be seeing a by-election soon which will be remembered for a very long time. Would you not agree that would be the case if we saw a spectacular collapse in support for Labour and an unprecedented rise in support for Reform?
With the present political climate and political trend, plus the fact that by-elections are often traditionally used by voters to punish the ruling party, Labour halving their vote and Reform doubling their sounds fairly feasible.
It could actually be quite beneficial for the Labour Party if it were to act as a wake-up call and they started to deal with the Reform threat in a serious and effective way.
Although in reality I suspect it would be a lesson not learnt and Labour would simply double down and continue to play Reform at their own game, with the same disastrous and predictable consequences for Labour as it had for the Tories.
The ramping up of arms expenditure that Squeaky Starmer is proposing will coincide with a commensurate cut in expenditure on health and education. Rachel's 'fiscal rules', innit.
Driving up European expenditure on defence (with its negative impact on public services) is a key element of the strategy of the far right. It will increase dissatisfaction amongst the demographic groups they wish to target, then the blame can be pinned on immigrants.
It could actually be quite beneficial for the Labour Party if it were to act as a wake-up call and they started to deal with the Reform threat in a serious and effective way.
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
Driving up European expenditure on defence (with its negative impact on public services) is a key element of the strategy of the far right. It will increase dissatisfaction amongst the demographic groups they wish to target, then the blame can be pinned on immigrants.
Spot on. But European leaders are in the pit now... they really have no choice but to fall into this trap set for them. Putin has the biggest players in the world/UN on his side now, and Europe either "wastes" money on arming itself, or cedes control country by country, with millions being killed or taken.
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
Are the US, China and Russia just trying to break Europe and pick over the carcass?
We showed we can be split... what else did people expect to happen next...?
Which is why I will probably hold my nose and vote Reform having voted Labour at the GE. But as you say, will it have the desired effect?
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
Not really. The more Reform are in the spotlight between now and the next GE the more chance they will be seen for what they are.
and Europe either "wastes" money on arming itself, or cedes control country by country, with millions being killed or taken.
Millions killed? Where? By who? Where's the evidence that Putin or anyone else intends on invading European NATO countries?
The problem with massive rearmourment is that sooner or later someone will want to use all these shiny new weapons and we'll talk ourselves into another world war. Europe and the UK would be much better off spending the money on public services and reducing working people's taxes so they can avoid the far right taking power. This playbook of massive military spending only leads in one direction.
And if we must spend more on weapons and armies, let the rich pay for it. A one off 5% wealth tax on anyone who has more than 10 million quid would go a long way towards it.
Not really. The more Reform are in the spotlight between now and the next GE the more chance they will be seen for what they are
If Brexit taught us anything - and Farage certainly learned the lesson - it’s that the opposite of that is in fact true. The remain campaign consistently pointing out that the ‘£350 million a week for the NHS’ figure was total bullshit actually just cemented it in peoples minds.
As for defence spending, to put things in context, Russia is currently spending 40%+ of its GDP on arms, Europes longest standing most powerful ally just went all in with Putin. The ‘fingers crossed and let’s hope for the best’ philosophy probably isn’t too wise at the moment, so the government (as with everywhere else in Europe) doesn’t really have a choice but to increase defence spending, unless it fancies being accused of criminal negligence.
The Polish and those next in line for any potential Russian expansionism are already massively increasing there’s and who can blame them?
We showed we can be split... what else did people expect to happen next...?
Indeed.
Blimey, the International Institute of Strategic Studies puts the Russian spend on arms as 5.9%. Someone needs to put them straight.
The Poles are itching for a conflict with Russia, many hatchets to bury.
Russia is currently spending 40%+ of its GDP on arms
Bollocks! Random googling suggests it's around 6%. Stop making stuff up.
Funny how one of the biggest supporters on here for Labour's 'we don't have any money' narrative is so enthusiastic about spending 10s of billions on weapons and armies. We'll be seeing Starmer in battle fatigues before long...
oh hang on..
It's 40% of public spending.
The Poles are itching for a conflict with Russia
I don't accept they are itching for it, but I think they see it as quite likely and are absolutely determined to be ready for it. The Poles are one of a list of European countries who I think will inevitably decide to develop a nuclear capability if the US completely abandon NATO and Europe. Add Finland and Sweden to the list. Maybe even Germany after decades of aversion even to nuclear power. Possibly even whatever is left of a sovereign Ukraine too. Another terrifying side effect of the path the US has chosen.
It's 40% of public spending.
I'll leave it to you to explain to binners the difference between total public spending and GDP. 😉
Obviously I meant public spending, or near 10% of their GDP.
The point is that they’re not ****ing about and now they appear to have the US if not onside, then certainly not on ‘ours’ either.
For a government to watch these events unfold over the last few weeks and not respond by increasing defence budgets would be utter madness. This is the first increase, given what’s happening, I doubt it’ll be the last. I’m sure we’ll see a fairly rapid ratcheting up across the whole of Europe. It’s probably going to be pretty lucrative to be an arms dealer in the next few years
I think we’ll be seeing a rapid increase in nuclear proliferation for many countries.
let’s face it, if 11 years ago Ukraine had retained nuclear capability and told Putin - “step foot in Ukraine and we’ll flatten Moscow” then we would not likely be in this position we are today.
Again, look at the Middle East - if Iran and neighbours had nuclear capability, Israel would be kept in her box and been a far better neighbour as against the petulant bully we have seen in recent years.
Again, look at the Middle East - if Iran and neighbours had nuclear capability, Israel would be kept in her box and been a far better neighbour as against the petulant bully we have seen in recent years.
For a government to watch these events unfold over the last few weeks and not respond by increasing defence budgets would be utter madness
Fine, whatever path your taking - but many folk have spent the last few months going - there's no money, black-holes , inherited an economic shortfall and all that guff but now the same people have no problem with money just appearing to pay for it.
It's not even moderately critical thinking to notice this.
Next time there's an argument for needing money for regular society stuff (like yesterday) that's not involving the military can we use the same logic they have applied to defense?
(To be fair you could make a simple case for increasing spending and defence at any time. There's always been a terrorist, axis of evil, WMD - whatever.)
I do feel we're being led down a very familiar path with the Labour party though, only we've learnt nothing and it's accelerating due to lack of popularity.
Money spent on defence will mean money not being spent elsewhere. In the short term. Not because the government can't create more currency... it can, and does... but because there are negative effects of creating too much too fast without making it clear how you will recover it.
If we’re increasing the defence budget I hope the money is spent with UK and European companies and not US.
The current headline on the bbc says international aid will be cut to fund the increased defence spending, so it hasn't "just appeared".
If you want Labour to be more like Reform... vote Reform.
So the only alternative to Reform that Labour can offer is to be more like them?
Well it's the sort of logic which obviously appeals to centrists......if you can't beat 'em join 'em, but how did that very same strategy work out of Rishi Sunak?
So we have Labour being like Reform, the Tories being like Reform and Reform being like Reform. Come on Lib Dems, you know you want to be like Reform. What a ****ing mess.
So the only alternative to Reform that Labour can offer is to be more like them?
Not at all.
But vote UKIP, vote Brexit, vote Reform, and politicians will take that vote into consideration when listening to voters.
If you don't want Reform to set the agenda, don't vote for them. It's not clever, it's self-defeating.
let’s face it, if 11 years ago Ukraine had retained nuclear capability and told Putin - “step foot in Ukraine and we’ll flatten Moscow” then we would not likely be in this position we are today.
Ukraine was quite happy to get rid of their nukes because they didn't have a nuclear weapons programme to maintain them. They were compensated and thought that they had an agreement under the Budapest Memoranda (and other agreements) to protect Ukraine.
It was a boost to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get rid of weapons from the third largest nuke-equipped nation in the world and for twenty years had been an example for other states to not bother developing nukes. I don't think that anyone in 1994 saw twenty years into the future.
The 2014 invasion of Crimea, spreading into approx 7% of Ukraine's total area, wasn't dealt with effectively by the west. Arguably Ukraine's nukes, had they still existed, would have been an excuse and a target for Russia as a prelude to invasion in any event.
I think we’ll be seeing a rapid increase in nuclear proliferation for many countries.
At the time the agreement was considered to be a good one, but ignoring it in 2014 will undoubtedly cause consideration of the development of nukes in other nations that now justifiably feel threatened by their neighbours
The key thing now is for Europe to get its act together, which it has failed to do for 10 years, and stabilise the security of Ukraine and therefore Europe. It's going to cost, but a stronger Europe might reduce the perceived need for further nuclear states within Europe at least.
But vote UKIP, vote Brexit, vote Reform, and politicians will take that vote into consideration when listening to voters.
If you don't want Reform to set the agenda, don't vote for them. It's not clever, it's self-defeating.
Well that is the first time that I have heard a staunch remainer on stw claim that Brexit is what the voters wanted and that it was right for politicians to listen to them.
Personally I am a bit more skeptical that was necessarily was what was first and foremost on voters minds.
Anyway be that as it may it is widely accepted that in today's political crises which have gripped western democracies voters have become highly cynical in their attitudes towards what they see as discredited establishment politicians, and it is much more a case of voting against something rather than a case of voting in support of something. See the 2024 UK general election result as a recent example of that.
In the case of UKIP it has long been seen as a vehicle to express a protest vote against establishment parties rather than support for UKIP itself. During the 2013-14 period in particular UKIP was topping national elections and yet despite that I believe that in their entire history they only ever managed to win one single parliamentary seat in their own right (as opposed to defections from the Tories)
Voters have repeatedly used UKIP as a protest vote whilst not necessarily being willing to give them any significant political power.
If Labour politicians cannot see these self-evident facts, and how it is linked to a political crisis which is largely affecting all the Western democracies, then they really need to go away and have a long hard think. Obviously the unpalatable conclusion they might come to though is that the underlying issue is the political-economic model which they are all welded to.
Challenging the very core of your beliefs is never easy. Although necessary.
Well that is the first time that I have heard a staunch remainer on stw claim that Brexit is what the voters wanted and that it was right for politicians to listen to them.
I didn't say it was right, I said it's what happens.
If you voted for Brexit, and now complain about the way politicians have shifted the way they talk about immigrants. What did you expect?
If you vote for Reform now, expect more of the same.
What did you expect?
Well I expected the Labour Party at the very least not to rake the gutter for cheap racist votes with Reform UK style dog-whistling, is that really too much to hope for?
The UK is out of the EU but I fail to understand how, for example, that somehow justifies a Labour government denying British citizenship to successful asylum seekers because they made a "dangerous journey".
Perhaps you can explain it to me? Personally I find it utterly deplorable as I would do if it was a Tory government's policy, although even more so precisely because it is a Labour government's.
Didn’t you vote to ‘take back control’ Ernesto?
Well this is what you voted for. It’s happening, it’s a bit late in the day to be getting squeamish about the course it set the country on.
The Labour version of it is the most benign immigration policy presently available in the current post-Brexit climate (Bar a Lib Dem government). The Tories wanted to ship everyone to Rwanda and Reform want to drown them all in the channel
The people (including yourself) have spoken and apparently this is what ‘they’ wanted. To paraphrase the favoured rhetoric of your fellow Brexiteers… you won… get over it 😉
Well this is what you voted for.
So you are backing this absurd claim that racist dog-whistling from a Labour government is the inevitable consequence of leaving the EU.
Well that's quite something. Why do you think that a Labour government cannot embrace immigration and nationality policies that aren't racist now that the UK has left the EU?
Are you suggesting that EU membership guaranteed in some way that the UK's immigration and nationality legislation was not racist?
With the spectacular rise of the far-right across the EU are you seriously suggesting that as long as countries stay within the EU racism towards immigrants and asylum seekers cannot be a problem?
I find it astonishing that an organisation which is inherently racist (there's a clue in the name) should be offered up as some sort bulwark against growing racism, and not least because of the overwhelming evidence which suggests the complete opposite.
The Brexit vote - which you vocally supported and still defend - is the equivalent of voting for Le Pen in France, the AfD in Germany or Georgia Meloni in Italy
Simple as that
So to hear a Brexiteer now complaining about this country having shifted to the right on immigration… seriously?
The Lexiteer philosophy was always hopelessly naive misguided nonsense. At the end of the day Brexit was a right wing project, largely based on racism and small-minded insular nationalism.
When you find yourself on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, Mark Francois and Bill Cash, among so many other loons, you may need to ask yourself some pretty serious questions…. like the Mitchell and Webb sketch ‘are we the baddies?’
To now complain about the direction of travel of a country that voted for the most right wing racist project this country has ever seen, on the strength of a campaign like that, with Nigel Farage stood in front of a poster showing a line of brown people with the strapline ‘Breaking Point!…. Really?
As Kelvin asked… what did you expect?
You broke it…. you own it.
So it turns out that Nigel Farage was right all along :
Reform UK’s newly published manifesto has pledged to cut spending on overseas aid by half, claiming it would save £6bn. -
The defence spending is the equivalent of £6bn a year extra from 2027
So both Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer have figured out where is the best place to save £6bn from..... the aid budget.
But here's the problem.... despite cutting aid being likely popular with bigots who might be inclined to to back Reform UK there is also a risk of losing support to the LibDems and the Greens :
Downing Street insiders believe that cutting the aid budget could be popular with the type of voters inclined to back Reform UK that Labour needs to retain. However, they acknowledge there is a risk they could lose support over the policy to the Liberal Democrats and Green party.
I guess that best solution would be for Lammy and Starmer to do as they have done and emphasis just how incredibly difficult and painful it was to make the decision. Their faux tears might possibly do the trick.
Although as it turns that Farage was right long before Starmer about slashing the aid budget, as a way to save money, then the obvious response might be to listen more carefully to what Farage has to say in the future?
Not simply because of his valued judgement but also to figure out what the Labour government's policies are likely to be a few months down the line.
When you find yourself on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, Mark Francois and Bill Cash, among so many other loons, you may need to ask yourself some pretty serious questions…. like the Mitchell and Webb sketch ‘are we the baddies?’
Oh the ironing. It's you mate who are now on the same side of the argument as Nigel Farage and other assorted loons.
So are you Ernie. Stll wedded to the cult of brexit
I’m merely despairingly accepting the post-2016 status quo that you and the other 52% voted for
Nothing to do with me guv.
I’ve had quite a few years to get used to it by now. I take no pleasure in, but I’m quite bemused by, the vehemence of your buyers remorse.
I’ll say it again… this is what you voted for.
Which bit didn’t you get?
Suck it up buttercup.
It’s on you.