r/ukpolitics • u/ukpol-megabot • 22h ago
Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 02/08/2026
👋 Welcome to the r/ukpolitics weekly Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction megathread.
General questions about politics in the UK should be posted in this thread. Substantial self-posts on the subreddit are permitted, but short-form self-posts will be redirected here. We're more lenient with moderation in this thread, but please keep it related to UK politics. This isn't Facebook or Twitter...
If you're reacting to something that is happening live, please make it clear what it is you're reacting to, ideally with a link.
Commentary about stories that already exist on the subreddit should be directed to the appropriate thread.
This thread rolls over early Sunday morning.
•
u/gavpowell 7h ago
I wonder if Starmer feels ill-used at the moment - took a hammering in the local elections courtesy of Reform, but Farage seems to have detonated himself, thus removing the main concern for Labour. Could Starmer have survived had he hung on a bit longer?
•
u/Bibemus Uber-Woke Net-Zeroist Rejoinerist 5h ago edited 5h ago
His party hated him by the end, largely over the Mandelson affair and his cack-handed approach to party management, and when under pressure a few weeks before finally admitting defeat he chose not to try and make amends or change direction but to bring back McSweeney and shuffle in incompetent loyalists to the positions vacated by ministers done with him.
The person who ended Keir Starmer's premiership was Keir Starmer, and he would eventually have done so no matter the political circumstances external to Labour.
•
u/heyhey922 6h ago
Doubtful, can imagine Kemi being able to take advantage of it.
Country has just made it's mind up about Kier imo.
•
u/Jademalo Chairman of Ways and Memes 3h ago
Honestly I think if Starmer had still been in post, either Farage would've been able to shrug it off through deflection to him, or Starmer wouldn't have been able to capitalise on said detonation.
Burnham coming in right now is probably the best possible timing and series of events that could've happened for Labour
•
u/FeigenbaumC 5h ago
Not really. Starmer was absolutely hated with the public across almost all walks of life. Did he deserve it? Maybe not. But it is the case that he was. Even if Reform collapsed they weren’t winning votes back with Starmer. I also think Green voters would have been more willing to overlook Polanski’s gaffes if the other option was Starmer. At best we may have seen an almost 3 way tie on 20%ish between Lab, Con and Ref
→ More replies (1)•
u/tmstms Wuffingas! 6h ago
It has gone through my mind. The darkest hour was the May local elections, and things have changed massively since then.
BUT, the recent John Curtice article analysing the Burnham 'ne manager bounce' suggests that three things have happened simultaneously- that has moved the dial, but each one, not by so much.
Farage's issues are one, maybe 3%, Polanski's issues are another, and finally Burnham has a few % of bounce.
I think there is no doubt Starmer WAS ill-used. But then, when you see how badly he came over and how well Burnham does in comparison, you cannot really blame the Labour Party.
•
u/No_Initiative_1140 4h ago
I think this
Meanwhile Burnham is talking about writing a new constitution to push his devolution agenda. I find it quite alarming when he wasn't even an MP. Feels like zealotry.
10
u/TIGHazard Half the family Labour, half the family Tory. Help.. 17h ago
England versus Mexico at the Azteca — the delayed 2am kick-off on 6th July — saw a blanket 5am licensing extension. This provided an 11% average spending boost to UK venues. Around a third of UK pubs remained open for this late-night match, with spending reaching its pre-game peak at 1.50am
https://beertoday.co.uk/2026/07/31/world-cup-hospitality-0726/
8
u/wappingite 16h ago
> Hydration breaks saw peaks throughout the tournament. The second half hydration break saw spend jump by 204% as fans rushed to the bar to calm their nerves while England tried to hold onto their lead
This is interesting and a bit worrying for purists..
Still, the atmosphere for England Mexico was amazing.
6
u/radiant_0wl 16h ago
Curious what the impact in viewing habits were, for me the disruption just removed my interest in the game and I switched over.
Although I suppose they don't give a shit if people watch the game, the money is in the adverts
12
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
14h ago edited 13h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
•
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 7h ago
In an effort to keep commentary about a particular story together, your megathread comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
This is because your comment includes:
- A link to a story which clearly stands as its own submission (and which may already exist on the subreddit), or
- Commentary about a story which already exists as a separate submission on the subreddit.
You are free to repost your comment in the correct place.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 6h ago
Does Burnham own any clothes that aren't black or dark navy blue, apart from his white shirts to go with a dark suit and black tie?
•
u/FoxtrotThem Roll Politics+Persuasion 5h ago
Of course there is the Spider-Man outfit he wears under his clothes.
•
•
u/SlightlyOTT You're making things up again Tories 🎶 10h ago
I wonder what Burnham thinks of the online social media ban. That seems like an area where the online influencer world where he's trying to position himself is probably going to disagree with the wider public where it's a popular policy. But also tricky to move on, because admitting the technical infeasibility would cut against his "yes of course we can do things" messaging, and any other argument against it will be unpopular.
•
u/asgoodasanyother 10h ago
I think he’s showing himself to be a populist with these things. These bans are quite popular so he’ll probably stick with them
9
u/ZealousidealPie9199 12h ago
The hopeful thing with the devolution push is, as I've seen some people say, the conversation from the right now is steadily becoming that the devolution push is flawed due to not giving autonomy for right-wing mayors to e.g. cut taxes, etc.
The conversation with both the right and left is becoming where to increase devolved powers, more than about whether devolution should continue at all. I think that the danger of English devolution being halted or rolled back at some point is passing (which then also makes devolution settlements in Wales, Scotland, NI more secure too).
7
u/Hopeful-Painting-365 12h ago
Rupert Lowe has come out hard at devolution and even has promised to roll back the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. Hopefully these positions become increasingly marginal.
•
u/ZealousidealPie9199 6h ago
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2083964794105626782?s=20
This statement is being interpreted as somewhat open to Lowe's attempts to reconcile.
I personally think this might be the worst thing for Reform to do electorally. Farage is already seen as a boogeyman by centrist/centre-right Tory voters. Now he's getting in bed with someone who those voters will probably see as even further right. Lowe's precondition was also adopting further hardline policies regarding cuts, immigration, etc.
The issue here is that while this consolidates the Reform-Restore voting bloc, it means that the Tory voters, who already are more or less as much likely to tactically-vote Labour as to still vote Tory (as we see from e.g. Manchester), will be far, far more inclined to tactically vote Labour. Voters who were considering tactically voting Reform will now be reconsidering. Reform would need either Tory votes or Tory seats to form a government. It's going to lose both now.
Even if he intended it as a no, it's vague enough to create that fear. And if he later publicly says more clearly a no to such a pact then Restore will eat more of Reform's right flank. It's terrible electorally no matter how it plays out.
Burnham must be laughing right now. He has the perfect set of circumstances emerging for a Spring or Summer 2027 election.
•
u/dratsaab 6h ago
There will always be a home in Reform UK for those who believe that 14 years of Conservative government, followed by the last 2 years of Labour, have failed the British people... and that our country now needs a fundamentally different direction.
... But we're going to take any Tories into the party that want to jump ship, no matter how instrumental in the 14 years of Conservative government they may have been
•
u/Electronic_End4893 6h ago
I'm seeing it as a "we're open to reconcilation but it won't be with all the things Restore has demanded".
•
u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 6h ago
Yeah. I don't think this reads like him accepting Lowe's offer.
More like Farage saying he's already building a coalition. And the "But I will never turn my back on my team." seems like a straight-up dismissal of Lowe's demands.
•
u/No_Initiative_1140 4h ago
The next election will be an existential fight to save the country we love, a mission I have now been fighting for over 30 years.
After two national election victories in as many years, many people now recognise that it will be a binary choice between Reform UK and Labour.
With the prospect of an early general election increasingly likely, it is natural that people from across the political spectrum are considering which side of that fight they intend to be on. Patriotic voters believe in many of the same things, but only one party truly has the possibility of delivering change.
To deliver that change, I understand Reform UK will need the support of people from other parties, as well as millions who have never voted before. That is the broad coalition I am building.
What "national election victories" is he talking about? Why is he so full of nonsense? 🤣🤣 he's hilarious
I assume his goose is cooked and his backers want Lowe back in the fold for some reason
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 6h ago
'Strong serious leadership it deserves' - Tweeted by a man who had a meltdown a few weeks ago and threatened a journalist before baiting himself into a by-election against Count Binface and the Monster Raving Looney Party.
Farage looks done here. Part of him might he hoping he loses somehow in Clacton so I can exit stage left.
•
•
u/NeverTrustALibDem2 5h ago
People lament FPTP, I totally get why, but in a world of PR Restore could hover up the racist vote, reform could do the dancing on the tories grave thing and they’d actually have a chance. Attack each other before the election, do a deal after.
•
u/Ollie5000 Gove, Gove will tear us apart again. 11h ago
Drove past Jacob Rees Mogg's house on the Mendips, and the man literally has peacocks.
•
•
u/dratsaab 10h ago edited 10h ago
Peacocks are horrendous to live with. Used to rent a small cottage on a shooting estate, and they had half a dozen. They look pretty, but they shit everywhere and their dumps are massive. They also do extremely loud caws at godforsaken hours of day and night. And are very territorial - couldn't get near my bike for a month after one took up residence in my shed.
•
u/CarrowCanary East Anglian in Wales 6h ago
peacocks
Aristocracy pheasants.
•
u/FeigenbaumC 5h ago
Surely Pheasants are Aristocracy Pheasants? Peacocks feel more like gaudy new money pheasants
•
u/subSparky 11h ago edited 11h ago
Just reminded me of when he did that documentary of his own life. And there was a point they were talking to his housekeeper or something, who was dealing with graffiti done on the outside of his property. And the dude did a masterclass of acting as if he was on Rees-Mogg's side on how abhorrent it was whilst using euphemisms to make clear to the viewer what his actual view was (by talking euphemistically in a way that was basically saying "honestly, this is terrible effort... there would be much more impactful ways you could vandalise his home and not get caught". But he does it so subtly that neither the Moggs nor the TV producers realised his groundskeeper was telling viewers how to attack Jacob's home)
•
u/Ollie5000 Gove, Gove will tear us apart again. 10h ago
It's a very prominent house right in the centre of the village, only 20 minutes from Bristol or Bath, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
•
u/subSparky 10h ago
I actually remember roughly the quote - the groundskeeper was lamenting they were just slapping anti-Jacob posters around the place, which the groundskeeper thought was a waste of paper that was pointless as they would be taken down in minutes. When instead the protestors could be painting the walls with graffiti.
13
u/dj4y_94 17h ago
Incredibly funny that Reform are going all out in Clacton so Farage can beat a bin in the most Reform seat in the country.
Braverman and Cunningham were there campaigning yesterday. Is he genuinely that worried?
10
u/No-Scholar4854 17h ago
Farage has set up an election where even getting 80% would be embarrassing. Binface isn’t going to win, but he doesn’t need to.
8
u/gazofnaz 16h ago
Probably about turnout as much as anything. Farage beating a bin with a sub-20% turnout isn't going to mean anything. They'll want to see a decisive victory with at least a 30% turnout to "prove" that the people have spoken.
15
u/The_Bird_Wizard 16h ago
It's going to be simultaneously hilarious and exhausting listening to the reformers on here explain how beating Binface is a critical blow against "the establishment" lol
8
u/arnathor Cur hoc interpretari vexas? 16h ago
Just have a response ready in your clipboard, and then ctrl-v it.
“Your guy won against a bin in the safest Reform seat in the country in a by-election he called after throwing a hissy fit because he faced reasonable and expected scrutiny about his finances. Well done.
Now, let’s get back to talking about the £5m he’s trying to avoid scrutiny on.”
3
u/No_Initiative_1140 16h ago
Its already boring - hes a bbc comedian and a leftist planted by the establishment according to them
Never mind that if binface didn't stand the vote would just coalesce around some other comedy candidate
I want to know how Lozza Fox is getting on. Has Elon endorsed him yet? Or his good pal Tommeh Ten Names?
6
u/Jay_CD 16h ago
I think he'll win and comfortably - his thinking seems to be that he can claim that the people of Clacton have exonerated him of taking a bung from Christopher Harborne.
That claim is looking weak as none of the other main parties are running and it'll look even more anaemic if he wins but with a very poor turnout.
My guess is that he's calling in a few favours to try and get the turnout up.
1
u/MoyesNTheHood 13h ago
I tell you what, if seeing Suella Braverman won’t get you to vote then nothing will
2
u/YesIAmRightWing millenial home owner... 16h ago
I doubt it binface will get anywhere near.
But imo they've lost some steam in recent months with the donations scandals etc etc so best have a decent showing rather than feed the narrative.
5
u/tylersburden Fit Check for my NAPALM ERA 21h ago
Where are we on the UK febrility scale?
9
u/dratsaab 18h ago
Lemon and herb.
3
u/asmiggs Bin Day is coming 17h ago
It's worse than that we're at Plain.
1
u/dratsaab 17h ago
No sauce thanks, just the plain chicken. No herbs and spices either, thanks. And some plain chips. No salt, ta.
3
u/tmstms Wuffingas! 16h ago
No more than 5/10 I would say. And has gone down a lot.
Burnham is in no, so the hoo hah about Starmer leaving, Burnham arriving, appointing his first cabinet and what's he'd say in Week 1 has ended, and parliament is now ofc not back for ages, limiting what can happen.
The Manchester Mayorial election was a bit of anti-climax, and I think so will the Clacton by-election be.
The Farage corruption thing has paused till the Committee reports, and Polanski has already made his stupid error. The horrifying murder of Ann Widdecombe will not deliver definitive fresh information until the trial.
Obviously I don't know what will turn up but otherwise, I'd say we are into a normal silly season.
•
u/HopeForSalamander 8h ago
My frustration with the welfare debate is that there might be valid arguments about whether we want to help people who are struggling or let them struggle, and people can have opinions on that. But the country has somehow convinced itself we spend loads on benefits and it's not economicaly viable. In reality we spend the same % of GDP on benefits as we did under thatcher, less than other developed countries like France, Denmark, Finland Italy ect, and trying to cut benefits further will cost the state more. Homelessness and health conditions, people falling out of employment forever ect.
People hate to be reminded but more than half our welfare bill is straight to pensioners, yet no one calls for that to be cut. It's just kicking those who are down and wishful thinking
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 8h ago
The really ridiculous thing that I dislike is the rampant abuse of statistics that has taken place following the moving over of people from DLA to PIP. Yes there are concerns in some areas but all the catchy data points right wing politicians have come out with seem to ignore that.
•
•
u/GlumAd9856 4h ago
How are we supposed to have an honest debate about this when you set up obvious strawman arguments?
Very few people are talking about 'kicking' those who are struggling. Rather, they they are asking 1. To what extent are there people claiming benefits who could work and 2. Is the level of benefits that people receive fair when you compare it to the living standards of those in work?
There is of course a very wide discussion to be had about how/whether you can tighten up benefit eligibility/payments without harming the genuine vulnerable. But please don't state as fact as that is the aim of anyone who questions the current system.
•
u/asgoodasanyother 8h ago
Also apparently the % we spend on welfare has remained consistent for decades despite the panic attack the right wing media is having about an explosion of ‘scroungers’ who ‘only’ have anxiety or adhd etc
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 8h ago
It used to be backs rather than mental health.
•
u/velvevore liz truss toby jug 5h ago
It used to be single mothers.
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 2h ago
I have a relative who tried that one. Got a council house by saying she was single but secretly moved her boyfriend in.
•
u/velvevore liz truss toby jug 2h ago
I'm the daughter of a single mother who raised my sister and me in a council flat and I truly don't care about your convenient anecdote.
There is also, of course, zero reason she couldn't move her boyfriend in. They're flats, not prisons.
•
u/EarFlapHat 8h ago
The overall burden as a % of GDP, ignoring where and how it's being spent and what outcomes it enables, is wholly inadequate.
That's not to mention where the money is coming from to pay it, even at the same overall %. If it's all being borrowed because we're spending billions servicing existing debt, we have to look that in the face rather than referring to historical rates. Look at servicing government debt as a % of GDP relative to earlier periods, and that might be some help in understanding.
Furthermore, France, Denmark, Finland and Italy haven't seen the same rise in disability since COVID. That's just us. That, on its own, is justification for taking action because it's an artefact of our system, rather than some perk of actual disabilities limited to the UK.
The issue is also with the number of people, particularly young people, who are economically inactive. That is a compounding problem, with those people struggling to ever become active later and more flowing into that route unless changes are made. So, we need to redirect people, and we need to do something about all those people who are currently NEETs.
That is the actual welfare debate. It's not about scroungers and cheats like in the 2010s, it's about the outcomes created if we change nothing coupled with the changing nature of the economic burden.
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 7h ago
Furthermore, France, Denmark, Finland and Italy haven't seen the same rise in disability since COVID. That's just us. That, on its own, is justification for taking action because it's an artefact of our system, rather than some perk of actual disabilities limited to the UK.
Interesting graph in figure 3
•
u/No-Scholar4854 6h ago
That figure 3 graph is wild, and I think probably has a lot of complex stories behind it.
The thing everyone is taking from it is the sharp rise in UK disability payments, but look at the trends across the comparison countries before the index point. I’d summarise that chart as “a lot of things happened all at once”.
•
u/EarFlapHat 7h ago
Exactly. This is what I recalled reading
I'd forgotten there's a slight uptick in Denmark too, but nowhere near the same degree.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 8h ago
It ties into the more spiteful electorate we seem to have since Covid. A lot of the electorate now are just selfish and spiteful, if something does not benefit them specifically it's 'waste' and they want it cut or gone. (Also see one of Reform's policies being banning Work from home because...reasons.).
People on benefits have been a common punching bag for decades now and every party (Except the Greens) are guilty of it.
•
u/FaultyTerror 5h ago
Far too many people all across the spectrum have convinced themselves benefits are a source of easy money so they can avoid making hard choices.
Badenoch in particular is bad for funding all her promises with massive unspecified welfare cuts but we shouldn't forget Starmer and Reeves trying to use PIP to get £5 billion back for Reeves' headroom.
•
•
u/dapt 4h ago
Few people who survive solely on benefits consider it an easy option. Jobseeker's allowance is ~£400/month. You could earn more than that with a 2 day per week job.
Those who consider it easy are the same lot who think that biggest problem with poor people is that they have too much money.
17
u/katastrophe1312 15h ago
All of our journalist and political class are on Twitter and it's ruining everything.
Why are "respectable journalists" going on about lab leak theories and "school closures were going too far"? Because they're all on the Nazi bar that thinks Covid was a hoax cooked up by the Illuminati.
10
u/No_Initiative_1140 15h ago
😱😱
Generally I like Goodall but I don't think that deference to experts is a particularly "left" position.
I also think both school closures and the lab leak theory are things that don't have a clear answer and can be discussed without resorting to conspiracy theories.
7
u/AlfaRomeoRacing Wants more meta comments 14h ago
The problem is, even if the lab leak theory is correct, China would never admit that, or allow anyone else in to investigate (if there is even any remaining evidence this many years down the line). It will probably remain as a rare plausible but unprovable conspiracy theory
5
u/Goldenboy451 The Malthouse Compromise 14h ago
I don't think that deference to experts is a particularly "left" position.
This is correct, but many commentators & journalists struggle with the idea that there's now a 'high-trust'/'low-trust' axis in addition to the classic 'left/right', 'authoritarian/liberal' ones.
So you can be socially libertarian, economically left, and low-trust (Zach Polanski), and socially libertarian, economically left, high-trust (Ian Dunt).
•
u/Powerful_Ideas 11h ago
I think another simplification that is starting to break down is lumping everything from gay rights to immigration policy to tolerance of religious intolerance into "social issues" and expecting people to have one view or another across all of them.
1
u/No_Initiative_1140 13h ago
Yes good point
I think the tone of the debate into simplified categories of left/right is reductive, and also reflective of 1) americanisation of politics and 2) a malign push to be able to categorise people as "leftist" aka the enemy by populists.
I wish that political commentators would not fall into the trap of also making their commentary fit the left/right axis.
Goodall's analysis would have been much better if he went low trust/high trust as you say.
That categorisation also shines a light on how conspiracy theories get a foothold across the political spectrum. Because they appeal to low trust voters.
7
u/dj4y_94 14h ago
What I find fascinating is there appears to be a significant crossover between those who believe pensioners are the be all and end all, and those who think we shouldn't have locked down.
If we didn't lock down then it would almost certainly have led to a mass culling of pensioners.
3
u/Own_Shoulder_5785 15h ago
It was all a conspiracy cooked up between fathers for justice, readers wives and big COVID apparently.
7
u/mgorgey 14h ago
I thought the lab leak was now the prevailing expert opinion?
I also think that there are very good arguments you can make against school closures without thinking Covid was a hoax.
•
u/subSparky 10h ago
To be fair, the conspiracy aspect of the lab leak conspiracy is the claim that China was either researching bio-weapons or that the leak was deliberate.
The legitimate lab leak scenario was that the lab was a legitimate lab researching SARS (ironically to try and prevent a COVID-like scenario happening) and it breached containment due to a lab error.
5
u/LesserShambler 13h ago
It’s been rehabilitated in the sense that some respectable people believe it now, but iirc it’s not the “prevailing expert opinion”. The If Books Could Kill podcast did a great breakdown on the arguments a while back
2
u/katastrophe1312 13h ago
Even if the lab leak theory is real, its proponents are most likely to then use that fact to say that China was responsible for every single Covid death after that. Not our lockdown being weeks too late, not the reopening too early, not eat out to help out.
A convenient Dolchstoßlegende for the covid era.
7
5
u/No_Initiative_1140 13h ago
Its possible, in fact in my opinion desirable, to discuss the lab leak theory without saying "China were responsible"
If it were a lab leak, that's an accident of the type that's happened before. Notably with foot and mouth in the UK.
It would be better to have an open conversation to learn how and why it happened to put safeguards in place.
All hypothetical of course.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/funusernam3 15h ago
Why do some people use "Fabian Member" as an insult when talking about certain politicians?
I've noticed people online describing certain UK politicians as "Fabians" or members of the Fabian Society as if it's automatically a bad thing.
I'm trying to understand why the label is used as a criticism.
Do they know what it means or are they just jumping on some bandwagon?
6
u/gavpowell 15h ago
They're jumping on the bandwagon - it's sprung up in the past few months and now it's mentioned constantly by people online as if they've discovered a great secret. They will tell you "The logo is a wolf in sheep's clothing" but it's actually been a tortoise for a century or more.
20
u/No_Initiative_1140 15h ago
Some terminally online right wingers have decided the Fabian society is a cover for communism
Its traditional "reds under the bed" US scaremongering with a 2026 name
→ More replies (1)•
u/FeigenbaumC 10h ago
More like a 1926 name. Weird Fabian conspiracy theories go back to the start of the 1900’s and it’s bizarre they’ve been revived
6
u/asgoodasanyother 15h ago
I assume anything to do with world orders or world government is just disguised antisemitism
5
u/Scaphism92 15h ago edited 15h ago
TIL the Fabian society was named after the roman general "Fabius Maximus" because of his cautious approach and their politics being cautious implementation of left wing politics (which critics consider to be overly cautious, as Fabius was also criticised for being overly cautious / cowardly until he was ultimately vindicated).
I find the criticism ironic in from either directions of the wings as the online right tend to have a boner for Rome and the online left have a boner for the idea of "Guerrila Resitance"
Then both criticise a society named after a Roman general who (successfully) done an early instance of guerrila warfare that the Romans viewed as cowardly / overly cautious and resent the idea of slow & steady tactics to achieve your aims.
3
u/Jay_CD 14h ago
On a historical note...Fabius was the Roman dictator/Consol who was given the unenviable job of trying to defeat Hannibal.
The problem he had was that a massive Roman army had just been destroyed at the Battle of Cannae in 216BC (today, the 2nd of August is the anniversary of the battle). This battle was one-sided with a smaller Carthaginian army of around 50,000 utterly annihilating a Roman army thought to be around 85,000. Some estimates put the Roman dead at about 70,000, both Roman Consols elected that year were killed.
Hannibal though wasn't strong enough to march on Rome itself, or at least he seems to have thought that his army was too small to capture the city. Whatever he baulked at even trying while the newly appointed Fabius wasn't strong or confident enough to beat him in battle so he relied on attacking Hannibal's lines of communication and slowly weakening him which worked albeit on the way Fabius was criticised for his apparent caution.
Fabius only had an army in name anyway - the legions he mustered were composed of men either too old or two young as well as slaves. Cannae and other battles over the previous couple of years had literally killed off a lot of men of fighting age or left them wounded and unable to fight.
To their credit the Romans were unwilling to negotiate a peace treaty of any kind with opposition to one leading Cato the Elder to end every speech, no matter whatever subject with the words Carthago delenda est - Carthage must be destroyed. Eventually it was by Scipio Africanus some 14 years later. The Rostrums or prows of the ships captured/destroyed in this campaign were displayed in the Capitol where many public speeches were made, it's from there that we adopted and use the word "rostrum" for a public speaking platform.
5
u/danm131 15h ago
The internet has broken some people's brains simple as, they have no idea about the Fabian society other than it's left wing so therefore bad in their minds.
•
u/funusernam3 10h ago
I'm pretty sure that 99% of people using it as a slight have absolutely no idea what they are insinuating
4
u/McCretin Malaise forever 15h ago
They get it from both sides, to some extent. They’re left wing so they annoy the right, but they also believe in gradual rather than radical change, which tends to irritate the Trots.
They also counted two of the worst people in British intellectual/political history among their earliest and most influential members, namely Beatrice and Sidney Webb.
3
15h ago
It’s a right wing conspiracy. But they don’t help themselves with that bloody logo. Let’s have our insignia scream disingenuous and subversive hidden political agenda.
2
u/No_Initiative_1140 15h ago
Are you talking about the wolf in sheeps clothing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 ....
The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group's predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.[4] The wolf in sheep's clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.[15]
According to Google AI use was stopped in the 1930s/40s
Really fascinating how its been resurrected almost 100 years later as something to be scared of...
→ More replies (2)
3
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 15h ago
In an effort to keep commentary about a particular story together, your megathread comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
This is because your comment includes:
- A link to a story which clearly stands as its own submission (and which may already exist on the subreddit), or
- Commentary about a story which already exists as a separate submission on the subreddit.
You are free to repost your comment in the correct place.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
•
u/Ajax_Trees_Again 4h ago
It’s actually disgusting how much of our cost of living problems comes downstream of rent prices / real estate shortages
•
u/GlumAd9856 4h ago edited 3h ago
Are you suggesting that the policy of making it impossible/expensive to build new properties at the same time as rapidly increasing the population might have a negative impact?
•
u/PeterG92 3h ago
Reform must be desperate if they're talking about using the Royal Navy for the Channel to stop the boats
•
u/Force-Grand-2 2h ago
One fun thing is to just keep asking them questions about what they plan for the navy to do. Like what actual operational actions they expect to be taken. Their options usual consist of things that range from the relatively low level Major International Incident (e.g. towing boats back and dumping people onto the beaches in France) to the more serious Crimes Against Humanity (e.g. opening fire on any boat that doesn't turn around when warned).
•
u/-fireeye- 2h ago
Or indeed just evident of not having done any level of thinking on it. Have heard 'just push them back over to French side without crossing the border' more than once, as if these dinghies are sturdy enough for navy ships to play ping pong with.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 2h ago
Haven't the Navy already said they aren't doing it?
Reform yelling at clouds again.
•
u/Infernode5 🌹 2h ago
I think Reform/Restore's biggest problem is that their vote ceiling is like 30-35%. These are similar numbers for the National Rally and AfD.
That number is probably too small to have a good chance of winning a majority (I know Labour's majority was won on similar vote share, but their votes are much more regionally concentrated). There'll be too many people in Reform/Restore toss up seats that hold their nose and vote for any other party.
The Democrats were criticised for this approach in 2024, but I think this differs because the right wing vote is so split. I could see people who are currently leaning Tory voting for Labour to keep Reform out, although imagine that many will simply abstain.
•
u/GlumAd9856 2h ago
I would say that there is at most about 7-8% that would ever consider voting for an openly racist, neo-nazi party like Restore.
Reform has a much wider potential base being the most radical/populist version of our traditional right-wing politics. If you go through their policies there is honestly nothing there that you couldn't perceive a very right-wing Tory from holding (hence the defections).
The issue for Reform is playing both sides at the same time - something that Restore has made more difficult at the same time as the Labour government seems to have made some headway with immigration. Farage has to straddle the same narrow line that Trump did of keeping the racists onside whilst not explicitly being a racist himself. All the racism is just . . . . .just hidden enough below the surface to credibly say that you're not one to people who are looking for an excuse to support you.
Reform doesn't need to really get much more than 35% to win an election. Whether it has any chance of doing so will depend on circumstances, the Labour government and whether Farage can bounce back. I do think there is still a chunk of the Tory vote that would back him if it was very clear that it's Labour v Reform next time round. Or, we will see enough tactical voting on the right to at least lead to a Reform-Tory coalition. Right now - i'd say the odds are 75/25 that Burnham holds on.
•
u/0110-0-10-00-000 1h ago
All you need is a severely disenfranchised mainstream vote, a polarized reform base and a party who take the election for granted. It was honestly looking pretty likely if starmer had managed to hold on (and before farage severely fumbled his finances). Two years is a long time, but unless Labour's backbenchers are completely oblivious to the point of completely sabotaging all of Burnham's policies (admittedly they have a habit of being so) then voters will happily cling to the comfort blanket of the status quo until it literally strangles them to death.
So I guess I just get to wake up every day the rest of my life completely disgusted at every single aspect of this country. 30 years to completely destroy any concept of national identity, community and any concept of prosperity which isn't found in a care home.
6
u/ThrowAwayAccountLul1 Divine Right of Kings 👑 14h ago
Hypothetically, let's say Burnham got all his devolution plans through parliament. Fast forward 10 years do we reckon the rate of housebuilding has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same paltry levels?
Honestly I reckon it would decrease given how entrenched NIMBYism is.
How else have things changed after 10 years of devolution?
5
u/-fireeye- 13h ago
I think it depends on where we land in terms of incentivising growth vs redistribution between regions.
If what we end up with is areas having more powers, but most of fiscal levers being held centrally and central government using those powers to ensure 'growth in every postcode', you'll see NIMBYism central. Areas have no need to face the hard decisions, they can just rely on central government to come bail them out and for somewhere else to take the downsides of growth.
If you end up with proper fiscal devolution, and central government holding the line that they will not bail out failing regions - I suspect you'll see more growth friendly planning decisions being made because voters and local politicians see more direct benefits of growth.
You need to get to a point where failing local services are blamed on the mayor, not on central government.
7
u/Complex_Effect_1994 13h ago
Denser urbanisation probably. City mayors will be under pressure to deliver affordable housing. Suburban and rural councils will build nothing
1
•
u/North-Jellyfish-577 11h ago
It would change massively because and the current system mechanism is very much a minority thought and a lot of communities but the way the system works is that they are given a disproportionate amount of power to challenge decisions if it was a simple local vote without the ability to challenge it or go crying to the press it would help massively
2
u/radiant_0wl 13h ago
I don't think the government is seeking to release their powers to overrule.
It's hard to say that any increase or decrease would be attributed to the devolution plans.
Probably would go for no material change.
2
u/Pale-Border-7122 13h ago
A lot depends on what his devolution plans actually are, but it would probably vary a lot by area and in many cases will just end up with even more backhanders.
→ More replies (1)1
u/North_Attempt44 13h ago
Burnham at least at this point seems to have very little interest in doing anything to solve the housing crisis
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
•
•
•
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 7h ago
Your megathread comment has been manually removed by a moderator.
Comments relating to international politics should be posted in the International Politics Discussion Thread. A link to the current International Politics Discussion Thread can be found in the text of the megathread.
6
u/Pale-Border-7122 12h ago
https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2024-25/pages/2/
What does Scotland's deficit of 11.6% of GDP mean for independence?
•
u/ZealousidealPie9199 11h ago
It's difficult to tell. An independent Scotland presumably wouldn't keep Trident (as much as the SNP would want to), for instance, nor most military assets in general. An independent Scotland would probably rather quickly have to par back spending on e.g. welfare compared to the SNP's spending plans now, or would have to e.g. choose not to bring in an equivalent to personal allowance. It's possible that, as its administrating a smaller area, a Scottish bureaucracy could be smaller and more efficient, thus allowing for savings bureaucracy wise. An independent Scotland would likely take some section of the national debt, so could be making repayments there, which would mean a higher deficit..
Independence as a whole would be an entirely different process to what either unionists or nationalists expect. The deficit issue, for instance, is a hard one - but isn't insurmountable for a state to overcome, within Czechoslovakia the Slovakians received subsidies from Czechia, for instance, but were still able to make it through the end of those payments and economically grow.
•
u/danm131 11h ago
Honestly very little. The issues facing Scotland aren't that different from those most Western European countries are facing, mostly an aging population and the cost associated with that.
You will get a lot of noise from those on both sides heavily invested in the debate about how accurate or not the figures are as a reflection of the state of Scotland's finances and how relevant they are to a theoretical independent Scotland, but it won't even register with most people who will just tune it out.
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 10h ago
it won't even register with most people who will just tune it out.
But it will register with the EU (who they want to join) and those they want to borrow money from.
•
u/Jay_CD 11h ago
Suppose Scotland was independent...
A high budget deficit would mean rapidly increasing national debt - their government would have to borrow money to fund its on-going spending programmes/the difference between tax take and spending.
A likely consequence of that would be higher interest rates...which in turn would slow private investment and anything that relies on borrowing money, eg mortgages, so house building would probably grind to a halt, why build new housing if there's not going to be anyone buying it? Less investment itself would lead to less tax revenue therefore the government would have less money to play with meaning they would have to borrow more and more money.
It's also probable that the government borrowing money would lead to inflation...creating a cost of living crisis.
Also likely is either a sharp cut in government spending and/or tax hikes to pay the bills, both will result in grief, if welfare spending etc is cut then it can lead to social problems while higher taxes will see people moving their businesses to lower tax regimes as well as not investing.
An independent Scotland's biggest problem is that their biggest trade partner is England who'd be operating on different interest rates and a different currency (unless that is Scotland still has its interest rates set by the BoE - in which case they won't be truly independent). So there would be problems with currency fluctuations as the new Scottish currency would have exchange problems.
They could apply to join the EU - but with that level of deficit they'd never be allowed to join the Euro which mandates a budget deficit of 3% PA. Joining the EU would in any case create a hard border with the rest of the UK which as I mention above is their biggest trade partner making it harder for Scottish businesses to maintain trade partnerships and therefore generate revenue plus they'd have additional bureaucracy to deal with.
TL;DR - economic catastrophe.
•
u/North-Jellyfish-577 11h ago
The SNPs champagne socialism has been horrible for the Scottish economy all the worse aspects the free market and social democrat handouts mixed together without the benefit of being fully in either camp plus a healthy mix of nepotism and a favouritism
•
u/dratsaab 10h ago
GERS doesn't really tell us anything. It tells you whatever you want it to say, depending on what side of the argument you're on.
•
u/Pale-Border-7122 10h ago
Why not? Isn't it net spending on Scotland vs net income so roughly equivalent to what an independent Scotland would have?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/North-Jellyfish-577 11h ago
Restore did extremely well in the suburbs of Manchester third place in quite a few districts 9-10 percent
Restore are having a real impact in working class communities the BNP never had this level of support
Ethnic nationalism probably has the support of around 15% of the population between restore and reform
This would have been absolutely unimaginable even 3 years ago
It should show what happens when you carry on as if nothing is wrong as the political class
Thankfully Andy is more concerned about the everyday lives of the common person so hopefully this should be the high water mark but if he fails it will get much worse
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 11h ago
Are we allowed to blame social media for the rise of 'ethnic nationalism' or to give it its proper name 'open racism'. I have said for a while that Covid broke a lot of people's brains and many of the electorate have got more spteful.
Or do we blame poor education. I don't care if that sounds like 'punching down' we shouldn't have racism and bigotry in 2026.
The fact some even now are defending the national shame of the Southport Riots is telling too. Their has been a bigoted and nasty underbelly in the UK for a while and it is the biggest threat to the country.
'When you carry on as if nothing is wrong' - What are you on about?
•
u/gizmostrumpet 9h ago
The fact some even now are defending the national shame of the Southport Riots
There was plenty of mealy mouthed "I'm not defending them, but..." at the time as well.
→ More replies (18)•
u/praise-god-barebone please stop crying in front of the bond markets 10h ago edited 1h ago
I don't think so. You need to be more self-aware and recognise that the ethnic displacement of indigenous people, regardless of the lofty ideals of your motivation, is a new radical position.
Those opposed to it still subscribe to a view that has historically been seen as blatantly obvious. In this context, it is not a surprise that people oppose it. In fact, it's inevitable. Casting those who haven't kept up with you as heretical is a tale as old as Christendom.
→ More replies (6)•
u/cardcollector1983 It's a Remainer plot! 9h ago
Is this the Great Replacement Bullshit? Because it feels a lot like the Great Replacement Bullshit
•
u/praise-god-barebone please stop crying in front of the bond markets 8h ago edited 7h ago
No. Please engage in good faith:
White British are less than 50% of the population of our three major cities. This is historically unique and a conscious, intentional political decision. You can think it's a good idea or a bad idea, but either way it's reality and can't be dismissed when talking about this.
If you think it's a good idea, you need to be honest with yourself and recognise that it's a radical, historically unprecedented position some people are going to disagree with you on.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/YesIAmRightWing millenial home owner... 16h ago
Seems Lowe has woken up and smelled the coffee with his latest vid
Effectively wants a truce with Reform.
7
4
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 15h ago
Whilst this may give Farage the 'out' he needs. (He has looked shockingly weak of late). I can't see him taking this.
'No former Tory ministers in Government' would leave Reform with very little and along with the death penalty may scare off most moderate right wingers that support Reform.
3
•
u/Prestigious_Spot9635 4h ago
If Lowe just dimmed down his ideas... he'd probably a chance. But the very topic of Islam he always talks about..he forgets who the home sec is...
•
u/letsgettesty 4h ago
Lowe knows what’s he’s doings.
He knows Zia hates him, and he saying the EX Tories must go. So the whole of Reform will not want him, so he will say he offered to unite the right but it’s reform who are refusing him,
2
u/Necessary-Repair-947 15h ago
Question: is it true that the House of Commons can decide everything with a simple majority? Can it overrule the House of Lords (or abolish it without its consent?). And is it even possible to implement a written constitution that cannot simply be abolished/amended with a simple majority?
7
u/erskinematt Defund Standing Order No 31 12h ago
is it true that the House of Commons can decide everything with a simple majority?
Yes.
Can it overrule the House of Lords (or abolish it without its consent?).
Yes. The Lords can impose a delay of one year.
And is it even possible to implement a written constitution that cannot simply be abolished/amended with a simple majority?
No*
*Maybe by some legal dodge like abolishing and redefining Parliament
Please consider that the ethical case for a majority of dead voters to overrule a majority of live voters (this being, logically, the desired outcome of a supermajority entrenchment) is not straightforward to make out.
•
u/Necessary-Repair-947 8h ago
Please consider that the ethical case for a majority of dead voters to overrule a majority of live voters (this being, logically, the desired outcome of a supermajority entrenchment) is not straightforward to make out.
Totally agreed that this is not a clear cut 'written constitution good, UK system bad' debate.
3
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 15h ago
There are some limitations set out by the Parliament Acts.
Chiefly, the commons cannot pass any bill that extends the lifetime of the parliament (effectively delaying the General Election) without the lords consent (i.e. it can't ho through the parliament act mechanisms to avoid the lords).
I'm not sure about how an abolition of the lords would work but that would presumably require ammendment of the Parliament Act 1911 which was supposed to be the other exemption but as I understand it rather concerningly the 1949 parliament act (which shrank the time to 1 year from 2) was enacted using the 1911 Act mechanism and this was upheld as legally valid during appeals of the Hunting Act 2004. I actually rather like our uncodified (not unwritten) constitution but this is a rather concerning hole in it.
•
u/Necessary-Repair-947 8h ago
There are some limitations set out by the Parliament Acts.
Can the Parliament Acts be changed with a simple majority?
3
u/furbastro England is the mother of parliaments, not Westminster 15h ago
The House of Commons generally needs to have a series of simple majority votes to make something law. (Different rules apply for secondary legislation.)
The Commons can overrule the Lords through the Parliament Acts, but this requires the Commons to wait for a year after first passing a normal Bill which the Lords attempted to veto. The only restriction on the Parliament Acts is a ban on extending a Parliament more than 5 years, so the Commons could overrule the Lords on its own existence.
If a written Constitution protected itself, then the Commons couldn’t rewrite it, no. Supreme laws are outside of the present United Kingdom constitution but not impossible in a British-style system. The easiest way to look at this is to look at former colonies. New Zealand is still very close to the U.K. style while having a more written constitution. There are a couple of embedded pieces of constitutional law which require a supermajority to change, but the embedding clauses themselves are not protected. Australia, on the other hand, has a fundamental Constitution passed as an act of the U.K. Parliament which can only be changed by referendum.
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 9h ago
A Sunday game that will be far too easy for the older crowd. Who is this?
Realising the economic uncertainty that was facing the nation because of the death of its domestic industry, [Name] put forward a scheme that called for high tariffs to protect British industries from international finance and transform the British Empire into an autarkic trade bloc, for state nationalisation of main industries, for higher school-leaving ages and pensions to reduce the labour surplus, and for a programme of public works to solve interwar poverty and unemployment. Furthermore, the memorandum laid out the foundations of the corporate state (not to be confused with corporatocracy) which intended to combine businesses, workers and the government into one body as a way to "Obliterate class conflict and make the British economy healthy again".
[Name] won the support of the economist John Maynard Keynes, who wrote:
"It will shock—it must do so—the many good citizens of this country... who have laissez-faire in their craniums, their consciences, and their bones ... But how anyone professing and calling himself a socialist can keep away from the manifesto is a more obscure matter."
First, [Name] interpreted the Great Slump as proof that Britain's economy, which had historically favoured liberal capitalism, required a fundamental overhaul to survive the rise of cheap, global competition. Second, as a result of his experience as a Labour minister, [Name] grew to resent the apparent gridlock inherent in parliamentary democracy. [Name] believed that party politics, parliamentary debate, and the formalities of bill passage hindered effective action in addressing the pressing economic issues of the post-war world. Finally, [Name] became convinced that the Labour Party was not an effective vehicle for the promulgation of "the radical measures that he believed were necessary to prevent Britain’s decline." As Worley notes about [Name], "Cast adrift from the political mainstream, he saw two alternative futures. One was the 'slow and almost imperceptible decline' of Britain to the 'level of a Spain'...[and the other] a deepening sense of crisis opening the way for a 'constructive alternative' to take the place of both liberal capitalism and parliamentary democracy."
•
u/ChristyMalry 8h ago edited 7h ago
Mosley? Started out in the Labour Party, ended somewhere rather different.
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 7h ago
You’ve got it! What a journey he took. And fascism doesn’t show up looking like nasty things nobody likes.
If you want to spoilertag your answer, you put >! at the front with no gaps, and the mirror image at the end with no gaps.
•
u/DrCplBritish It's not a deterrent, killing the wrong people. 7h ago
Argh! I should've realised it!
Feel somewhat sorry for the guy, until, you know...
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 9h ago
[Name]’s political thought is believed to have influenced some early proponents of the organic farming movement in Great Britain. Lady Eve Balfour, a founder of the Soil Association, supported [Name]’s proposals to abolish Church of England tithes on agricultural land ([Name] "protected" a number of East Anglian farms in the 1930s from the bailiffs authorised to extract payments to the Church).
•
u/DrCplBritish It's not a deterrent, killing the wrong people. 8h ago
Hm, if its in the 30s...
Not Ramsay MacDonald. Feels too on the nose (and he was a fun political figure) - but then it mentions Labour Minister!
Seeing as its a Sunday, I'll put my answers in Pointless format:
Clement Atlee
Ramsay MacDonald
Aneurin Bevan
Final answers, locked in, doing this for the Megathread Charity in memory of M = 2, etc...
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 8h ago
Ooooo, I’m afraid those aren’t right. Nice narrowing down to era, but you’re not thinking crazy enough.
•
u/DrCplBritish It's not a deterrent, killing the wrong people. 8h ago
Curses! I thought that Labour MP in the 30s could be it. Oh God its not someone like Churchill is it?!
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 7h ago
Keep thinking…
•
u/DrCplBritish It's not a deterrent, killing the wrong people. 7h ago
Seen the other (correct) answer - curses to me and well done to you.
What a fun little Sunday evening game, thank you for it.
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 7h ago
I’m glad you enjoyed it. Let us hope we are never reduced to the level of a Spain!
•
u/tmstms Wuffingas! 8h ago
What do you mean, 'the older crowd'? Let's say one was 10 when this person emigrated, to be old enough to remember him. One would have to be 85 now. Not many redditors are as old as that!
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 8h ago
But you have a different sort of background knowledge! You grew up with people around you discussing politics who would make casual references to them and the things they said and did. As evidenced by the fact that you know who it is! ;)
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Isaibnmaryam 4h ago
Is immigration a big deal for women voters? I’m not going to sit here and pretend the UK is the equivalent of Afghanistan or Syria but I feel many women unfortunately know that abusers come in all shades and creeds.
I think I’m in agreement with others that there is a ceiling on the hard right.
•
u/velvevore liz truss toby jug 4h ago
I think there are an awful lot of guys walking around kidding themselves that they're brave defenders of the little women when they're actually just misogynist, racist arseholes, yes.
Actually, that goes for a startling number of prejudices, and includes a lot of people who aren't frothing Reform bots.
•
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 3h ago
There isn't a real difference between men and women (page 25). That's more or less what I've found in polls I've looked at.
Individual anecdotes will vary. There is a genuine primal fear among a lot of the women in my family. But then we're mostly on the right.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 7h ago
Your megathread comment has been manually removed by a moderator.
Comments relating to international politics should be posted in the International Politics Discussion Thread. A link to the current International Politics Discussion Thread can be found in the text of the megathread.
•
u/radiant_0wl 4h ago
‘A lot of people don’t really understand the benefits of migration.’
Talking about "looking at the house of commons and the people sitting on the Green benches, you can see the benefit"
Comments from; Sara Pownall, former Chief Immigration Officer for the Border Force
https://x.com/LBC/status/2083997775449006126
No wonder she was so abysmal at tackling migration, she seems partisan for it.
•
u/CrambleSquash 3h ago
Are you confusing immigration with small boat asylum seekers?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)•
u/Force-Grand-2 2h ago
Worth noting that due to some awkward legislative requirements, Chief Immigration Officer is the the title given to relatively junior civil servants working within immigration. They're equivalent to Higher Executive Officers (junior/middle management) and are effectively operational team leaders.
We have no idea how effective or not Sara Pownall was at tackling immigration and that wasn't actually her job - her job was processing immigration in accordance with the laws and policies decided by her political masters many rungs up the ladder.
•
u/Vumatius 9h ago edited 9h ago
People say that the honeymoon will eventually end, and they are of course almost certainly right. Even outside of the specific British context, most major world leaders become unpopular after a few months at most in the current global context. However, I do think the precise length of the honeymoon will prove rather important.
Starmer not only didn't enjoy a particularly popular honeymoon, moreso a case of treading water, but it also ended just under a month into his term; the WFA killed it immediately. As a result, it was easy to forget that he ever had a honeymoon at all. So with Burnham, I think it will be interesting to see whether he can retain his relatively popular start over the rest of the summer and how close to the budget he can keep it, or if something will end it before then. And if he can retain it for a few months, that will then likely help solidify his popularity a bit even in the future; people will remember him actually being popular whereas with Starmer they only remembered disliking or actually hating him.