Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Also didn't realize Blair was so popular

[Sheilbh]

She's doesn't have another revenue stream, right?

No. This is I think part of the problem.

It's an issue in its own way but most ex-PMs (who don't stay in Parliament) go and sit on corporate boards or give speeches for a few hundred grand or write books that sell a lot. No-one is willing to pay Truss for sage advice, or reflections on leadership (and her book bombed unsurprisingly). So her revenue stream is to try and get money from the American right-wing grifter circuit - and even they appear pretty reluctant.

Also didn't realize Blair was so popular

It goes up to their first 900 days or roughly 3 years I think to try and provide a bit of meaningful context for Starmer's first year. At the time perhaps a sense that it can't get any worse. But Britain's in a Mick McCarthy timeline - it can.

Edit: I think the other thing it hows for me is how positive Americans are about leaders/deeply polarised they are because even Joe Biden or Donald Trump have, for British leaders, robust approval ratings I think it is the Americans who are odd on that as I think France and the Netherlands and other European countries tend to have a similar culture to Britain of very negative approval ratings but still possibly winning re-election as better than the alternative.

[HVC]

Europe also has a history of killing rulers* they don't like so their tolerance for hate is culturally ingrained at this point


*as a mob, not lone nutters... although they have that too.

[Valmy]

Man whose dog did Gordon Brown murder?

[Sheilbh]

Man whose dog did Gordon Brown murder?

He had a very good (and well-managed) honeymoon: a couple of crises that were very well managed, some decent announcements, a very nice message to draw contrast with Blair ("not flash, just Gordon"). It all crested in months and months  of rumours that he was about to call a snap election which the polls said he'd win.

And....he dithered. He let the speculation get way out of hand. And basically all the issues Brown had in the Treasury came to the fore: he couldn't make up his mind, he was demanding more and more polling evidence to make a decision, he was letting spin dictate what he was doing (and Cameron called his bluff). On the one hand it wasn't really important, on the other it seemed to confirm all of people's negative perceptions/fears of Brown. And he lost control of the narrative and was couldn't get it back. It was then all about him being a ditherer and weak - and once that narrative set it seemed to get re-confirmed with every crisis. He never really recovered - there was a bit of a boost in the financial crisis with a rally round the flag - and because he was genuinely very impressive.

FWIW I worry we're in a similar place now. Because everyone could read the polls and see Labour were heading for a very bad result but, despite lots of rumours challenges to Brown and lots of potential leadership challengers - for various reasons they just never went for it. The timing was never quite right, people weren't going to be handed the leadership on a platter because Brown wouldn't resign and none of them were actually willing to put their head above the parapet. Lots of echoes with that and the position with Starmer-Rayner-Streeting right now. I'd add that in the same way as Anas Sarwar said Starmer needed to go - clearly expecting a response in the cabinet (only for them all to issue statements of support before the end of the day) - there were at least two attempts when cabinet ministers resigned and called on others to also step down or people who were dissatisfied to launch leadership bids only for their allies to let them down.

[Sheilbh]

Europe also has a history of killing rulers* they don't like so their tolerance for hate is culturally ingrained at this point


*as a mob, not lone nutters... although they have that too.

I think lone nutter/the assassin is very much an American tradition (I think in part American main character energy plays a role).

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally slightly nasty story coming out of Labour at the minute.

Long story short is that the Labour MP for Hull, Karl Tuner, is a long-standing and vocal Starmer critic (more from the Labour right). However he has been a fairly loyal backbencher until the proposal to abolish most jury trials. There was a Tory motion to oppose the government plans on jury trials a few months ago and after a huge whipping effort, most Labour MPs voted it down. Karl Tuner rebelled (this was unnecessary and there were many abstentions).

Labour have now withdrawn the whip from him, which he discovered when it was reported by journalists. So far, so standard for Starmer's approach to party management - see withdrawing the whip for Labour rebels who tried to get rid of the two children benefit cap followed by, within twelve months, the government getting rid of the benefit cap and Starmer calling it his proudest moment in office.

Where it takes a rather nastier turn is that Tuner has been seeking mental health support from the House of Commons authorities. People in Number 10 were briefing to journalists and other MPs that Tuner was "mad" and "nuts" and according to one political editor told him that Tuner was "on suicide watch". Tuner apparently explicitly raised it with Starmer in a private meeting and asked him to tell his team to stop these briefings but they continued. (Slightly reminds me of Gordon Brown, another PM who made a lot of not doing dirty tricks or spin, whose chief spin doctor had to resign after it emerged he was briefing journalists that George Osborne's wife was "mentally unstable".)

It might just be politics but can't help but be struck at the extent to which Starmer has become everything he said he hates about it. Smear campaigns against backbench MPs (and cabinet ministers), regularly chucking underlings with no right of reply under the bus for his mistakes, doing the really annoying thing of just ignoring questions at PMQ and attacking the opposition. Not great when his deputy before the election was describing him as "Mr Propriety".

[garbon]

To be...fair(?) to Starmer, it seems like he was angling to have the whip withdrawn from him?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg54v6p98rjo

A backbench Labour MP who has been a frequent critic of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's government has been suspended from the parliamentary party.

The BBC understands Karl Turner, the MP for Hull East, had the Labour whip removed over recent comments about colleagues that have been described as "uncollegiate", rather than his criticism of government policy.

In a post on X, Turner said he was "disappointed to be suspended without prior discussion" and had asked the chief whip, through his solicitor, for a "full explanation".

Turner has regularly criticised the prime minister's policies, including the government's plans to reform jury trials.

Government sources have told the BBC that Turner has had previous written warnings, but the decision to suspend the whip will be kept under review.

Labour sources say there was a "pattern of behaviour" that led to the decision to withdraw the whip, which means he will sit in the House of Commons as an independent.

Turner said it was "clear" his suspension was connected to his "robust but fair" criticism of the government's policy on jury trials.

He said he wanted to "build bridges with my party, the prime minister and the government" adding: "My commitment to the Labour Party is unchanged."

"My loyalty remains, but so does my determination to stand up for what is right. I will continue to speak out against these proposals because my duty is to act in good faith, according to my principles and to protect the most vulnerable."

The MP has been one of the most vocal opponents of the government's proposal to limit jury trials in England and Wales.

Last year, the MP branded the reform a "stupid idea" and urged Justice Secretary David Lammy to "please God, stop what you're doing".

Speaking to Times Radio earlier this month, Turner said he was "already on a conduct warning for having the audacity to say that these proposals are ludicrous".

"I'm not going to be bullied around," Turner said.

"If my parliamentary Labour party chief, prime minister, leader of the party or whatever else doesn't want me in the party anymore, fine. I don't mind walking and causing a by-election."

More recently, Turner has commented on the theft of a government phone owned by the prime minister's former chief-of-staff Morgan McSweeney.

Messages relating to Lord Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US could be lost as a result of the theft in October last year.

Posting on X, Turner wrote: "I don't believe McSwindle had his iPhone stolen."

He offered no evidence for this claim.

But in a later post, he said: "I got the memo now. Morgan McSweeney was mugged, reported that to the police, followed all the processes. Any questions around this is just conspiracy theory territory, really. Let's move along now."

Labour sources say Turner's suspension was not specifically in response to saying last week that he did not believe McSweeney had had his phone stolen.

Last week, Turner was critical of McSweeney in an expletive-laden interview with activist and journalist Jody McIntyre, who came within 693 votes of unseating Home Office Minister Jess Phillips at the 2024 election.

In the interview, Turner cast doubt on McSweeney's version of events of the phone theft and alleged the prime minister's former chief of staff was "still running the job" in the background.

A Labour source said that many MPs, including some who had defended Turner over his attacks on the government, were aghast at the MP's decision to give an interview to McIntyre.

"That was the final straw even for his friends," the source said.

Addressing the interview in his statement on his suspension, Turner said "had I known then what I know now, I would not have participated".

"I have already requested corrections where my comments were misrepresented."

One Labour MP said that it was "about time" that Turner was suspended, accusing him of "whipping up" criticism of the government, especially on social media.

But another Labour MP, who is generally supportive of Sir Keir, accused the government of displaying "thin skinned arrogance" by suspending Turner.

A former barrister, Turner was elected as an MP in 2010 and served in the shadow cabinet of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

He was re-elected in 2024 with an increased vote share of 43.8% and an increased majority of 3,920, with Reform UK's candidate in second place.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's fair to a point.

In the context of Starmer's party management it's not odd to see him get the whip withdrawn. But I think that is still unusually brittle - Blair had Jeremy Corbyn as a very vocal rebel backbencher for his entire premiership, David Cameron had similarly vocal permanent dissenters (Andrew Bridgen springs to mind - he's since gone very much off the deep end but I've always quite liked the story that his animus against Cameron started when Cameron did a campaign visit to his constituency and described where they were walking through as a "shithole" ). And frankly closer to now Jeremy Corbyn didn't withdraw the whip from anyone despite huge numbers of his MPs absolutely hating him and spouting off regularly.

And I think having said all that I still think it's pretty unacceptable for Number 10 to be briefing journalists and other MPs about the mental health of one of their MPs, especially when they know he's been seeking mental health care.

[Tamas]

Well, being all buddy-buddy to Trump worked out swell.

Not.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/03/relationship-with-trump-may-be-beyond-repair-keir-starmer-told

[Valmy]

Trying to charm or buddy up to Trump thinking you will get jackshit in return is basically this meme in action:

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm not so sure. What did Britain concede to Trump anyway? Just some smooth-talking from Starmer; couldn't have done it myself but I think Starmer was right to try.

So Starmer has been polite and Trump has displayed his usual boorish zero-class oafishness. Trump has united the country, something very rare in the UK these days, even the comments over at the Daily Mail are sharply critical of him.  Being "roasted" by a low-class imbecile doesn't really matter to Starmer; the relationship with the USA does matter of course, but Starmer has allowed Trump to put himself firmly in the wrong, which may be useful when the USA changes tack under a new administration.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I agree. I've said before but I generally think Starmer's actually been pretty good on foreign policy. I'd add that Iran is the unusual (unique) issue where Starmer's instincts, the Labour Party and the wider public are all broadly of the same view.

Admittedly on the polling it's basically a 40/40 split of approve/disapprove of Starmer's handling but given his wider appoval ratings, those numbers are almost miraculous.

My issue with Starmer on this sort of thing isn't the tonal stuff which I don't really care about/don't think matters, but that I don't think he's been taking the decisions that change the material reality of our position. We are very, very slowly moving on energy despite being incredibly dependent on global markets (but signs we are going in the right direction). Still very, very little on industrial policy (as our chemical industry shuts down, in part due to high energy prices - as well as a number of other government policies that have really increased the costs for businesses in the last few years). And with both of those the current spending plan is still to increase defence spending from 2.5% to 3.% by 2035 - with most of the increases coming after 2029 (i.e. after the next election - both British and American). Running through all of those, incidentally, is Treasury orthodoxy - the global markets will always provide, planning is a dirty word and spending departments (particularly the MoD) cannot be trusted so it's always jam tomorrow.

Edit: I've mentioned before but on that and the tonal side the one that really annoyed me was a JEF conference at Tallinn. You had the PM of Estonia basically saying Europe needs to be on a war footing, JEF is great and working with the UK on defence is really important for Estonia etc. Then Starmer stood up and totally agreed with the sentiments, before patiently explaining that defence spending would be increasing because the NHS was the priority for public opinion in Britain. The Estonian PM on stage behind him looked like he was chewing bees.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The electorate is currently febrile and feckless, and has been for 11 years at least, which doesn't help. But then one has to ask what is a huge majority for? Traditionally it has enabled governments to make unpopular decisions and change things and hope that the improvements are visible to even the most obtuse voter 5 years on. This government has already wasted 21 months and in another 15 months the next election will be just round the corner. What is a Labour government for? That is the question even on sympathetic lips.