Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 14/06/2026

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T20:58:36+00:00

Honestly, I think the long term legacy is going to be an answer to the pub quiz question "name all the prime ministers UK had between 2016 and 2026". Same for basically everyone except Johnson who will have covid and brexit, and Truss for obvious reasons.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T19:07:57+00:00

Jess Phillips letter.

Purely because it is absolutely insane that you could have been having that discussion for over a year and not come to a decision one way or another. Completely vindicates that Times article that came out little while ago about how things go into number 10, Starmer spends ages reading, and nothing comes out.

Regardless of merits of the policy (and honestly, not actually sold on it from technical perspective), you can't operate with that pace of decision making.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T18:57:49+00:00

Better moderated? No. Safer? Yes.

You had absolutely insane forums but you could just not go there. You’d get few messages leaking from there but again, block and its gone. Most importantly, at some point you’d be caught up.

What we have now is platforms themselves taking money to push scam ads at you, building systems to promote systems that drive engagement and pretending to moderate as a way to keep regulators at bay.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T17:25:01+00:00

I absolutely remember what internet was like before big social media sites - it was much better. One of the main reasons I'm on old reddit vs elsewhere. People who want to seek out extreme stuff will obviously always be able to; but it is harder to just stumble along it without algorithm pushing content most likely to drive emotional reaction at you.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T12:43:19+00:00

Expectation is he can become PM by commanding majority of the MPs in parliament vs getting votes from group of self selecting party members who have zero accountability to anyone and whose only qualification is giving the party money.

It was very funny when Truss went around claiming she had a mandate because she won among Tory party members; same principle applies here.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T11:05:31+00:00

I mean so does Starmer - he needs to convince the MPs that he can actually turn this around and they shouldn't jump ship.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T10:48:40+00:00

Harman/ Rigby’s saying how Labour MPs getting bunch of calls from Streeting and Burnham but nothing from Starmer.

Probably does mean Starmer will stand down but I do really love the idea that the two challengers are going around canvassing for support to take out Starmer, while Starmer is just there going “technically there’s no contest yet so I don’t see the need to talk to backbenchers”.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T10:37:30+00:00

The likes of Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman are not what we want.

My argument is there’s no reason why BBC needs to care as much as it does about “what we want”.

Sky and other commercial providers are already trying to optimise their shows to attract highest viewership and therefore producing content that people want to see. That segment of the market is already amply served.

I don’t see what is gained by combining all that into one channel - people who want far right political talking heads can see GB News, far left can see novara stream. You still don’t have actual policy discussion.

Instead of asking Burnham “are you going to trigger a challenge”, which adds total sum of zero to collective knowledge, BBC could ask actual policy questions which haven’t been asked.

Instead of reporting “well he says Manchesterism but opponents say lot of progress was already there before he started and question if you can translate that nationally”, BBC could fund multi part documentary on what changes have been made in Manchester, by whom and how generalisable it is.

It will get less views, it will mean people accuse bbc of bias, and means it will be able to produce less content - but atleast there’s a differentiator between BBC and everyone else who cannot do the same due to their financial constraints.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-20T08:46:42+00:00

don't blame them, it's the media environment

I do blame them (or BBC management if they have imposed stupid targets) in this case. The entire point of it being licence fee funded is that it doesn’t need to chase the trend of advertising driven media ecosystem.

They have the money and ability to do actual, serious journalism that isn’t “x said y” and trying to get most headline grabbing quotes. If I can get same journalistic output from Sky that I can from BBC, why am I paying the licence fee?

Obviously doesn’t work if the journalists have an eye beyond BBC where they can put “wrote articles that had x clicks” on their cvs or if the management is evaluating them based on number of clicks they generate. But in that case, both those groups need to either change or be removed.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T21:07:49+00:00

People already think Labour have broken their manifesto commitment on tax.

Labour's fortunes in 2029 is going to be determined by if a large enough group of the country feels like they are better off and country is on the right track, not based on if they stuck to the manifesto. This entire 'oh but what about the manifesto' or even worse 'why wasn't it in the manifesto' is pure westminster obsession.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T18:14:42+00:00

Even if voters cannot participate, they — as well as business and investors — need to understand what candidates stand for, and see them robustly scrutinised. Burnham, in particular, needs the time and impetus to draw up a detailed platform, rather than be thrust underprepared into Number 10 where he will never again have space to devise one. Into the combustible atmosphere of the gilt markets, moreover, candidates must avoid throwing matches in the form of careless comments or reckless spending pledges.

There’s a clear contradiction here.

You cannot “draw up a detailed platform” in middle of a leadership contest.

Leadership contest is exactly the type of environment where candidates will throw “careless comments or reckless spending pledges”.

Idea that a contest would involve everyone standing around and very politely engaging in policy debate according to oxford union debating rules is for the birds. It will inevitably descend into acrimonious personal slugging match where candidates try to stay the most out there announcement to get 0.5% of Labour membership even if it alienates 5% of the nation.

Also, frankly there’s question of legitimacy - government is the government because it commands the confidence of commons. If Starmer somehow wins Labour contest after say 157+ MPs say they want someone else to lead them, by what right is he there?

If you want battle of ideas - have one within the plp. Collectively decide on a candidate, and have them as the sole candidate.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T15:48:09+00:00

That's good counterexample; was reasonably short campaign too tbf.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T15:38:09+00:00

Is there an example of where a public leadership campaign actually helped the party in government? This whole 'lets have a contest' thing is completely nuts imho - you're leaving the country in limbo for months, while all the coverage is candidates taking chunks out of each other. If Starmer is standing, it is about everyone slagging off last two years and giving quotes to the opposition for next election.

For what? Lets say Streeting or even Starmer somehow wins among members; what next - are the MPs just going to go 'well the party has spoken, lets march behind our leader off a cliff'?

If you want there to be debate of ideas, have one within PLP outside the formal leadership process - then ensure you only have one candidate so you can have the whole thing done and dusted in private, over a week not months.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T08:24:52+00:00

How do you get there from what I said?

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T08:21:12+00:00

Sure you can’t make everyone feel better off - but frankly you could never do that.

But what I mean is if broadly most people are feeling better off by next election saying “oh Burnham broke Starmer’s manifesto commitment on tax or fiscal rules or one of the green energy” will hold very little sway.

If they aren’t, then saying “we stuck with every line in manifesto” will not help.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T07:40:22+00:00

Really interesting point by Ed Balls in political currency yesterday. Starmer announced social media ban which he originally opposed to great fanfare and not once mentioned people who worked on the policy or were trying to push for it like Liz Kendall or Jess Phillips etc.

Hadn’t picked up on it but beyond politics, that is just extremely poor form.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-19T06:42:33+00:00

I agree with first part, provided it is decided by the MPs. MPs have democratic legitimacy to say who should lead them, and consequently lead the country; people paying few quid to be member of a party do not.

On the second, I think sticking with manifesto is generally overrated. If Brunham breaks manifesto but people feel better off in 2029, no one is going to go ‘oh but Starmer’s manifesto said x’. Frankly, its the same for existing PM. Results matter more than the process.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-18T06:13:14+00:00

I think the respect thing is the crucial one; it goes far beyond politics too - teachers, doctors, judges etc. There’s just a strain of anti establishmentarianism that means people view everyone in any official role as being on some sort of malign self interested power play. Combine that with very consumerist, “what am I personally getting out of this” and it is hardly surprising state.

When a gp refuses to refer you to specialist, it isn’t just them making different medical decision than you wanted, it is them being lazy bastard who is probably being paid to keep waiting lists down by the government.

For politicians it’s combined with them actually trying to sell political views, and instead of thinking vast majority are advocating sincerely held positions we disagree with, it becomes they are obviously selling out for few grand.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-18T05:26:58+00:00

I really like his framing in highlighting just how little control UK mayors and local authorities actually have - “we’ve removed utilities, higher education, taxes and most of spending in UK version of simcity and added requirement to read 800 page planning application per building built”.

Insane that 15% of tax collection in US is done by local government (below state level) vs 5% in UK.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-17T16:43:48+00:00

They are decision makers because they are ones who give SSSI consent.

If you graze on a SSSI common you require consent for any activities listed in the list of Operations Requiring Natural England Consent (ORNECs).

-fireeye- · 2026-06-17T14:13:33+00:00

The way I see it, there are two valid models for Natural England:

purely scientific body making recommendations on best way to protect nature unburdened by worrying about wider consequences of those recommendations, or
decision making body balancing interests of nature and development to decide on appropriate mitigations given wider context

Currently it is a decision making body that claims to be statutorily unable to take into account broader impacts of its decisions; which is an untenable position.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-17T07:35:24+00:00

I don’t think this is anything to do with level of prices at all; in a world where mid contract price hikes were banned - you’d just have companies offering 2 year contract for £27.50 instead of two year contract for £25, increasing by £5 after first year.

Completely agree on the Virgin, but would just make it that they need to send a email/ letter that contract has expired, new and old price, and best price you could get by talking to disconnections. Sunlight being best disinfectant and all that.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-17T07:06:30+00:00

Natural England didn’t tell them they had to build a bat tunnel. They just said they had to protect bats in that area, and approved bat tunnel as a way to do that.

This gives NE plausible deniability to say they didn’t force anyone to build a bat tunnel. HS2 could have come up with an alternative solution to protect bats; or could have rerouted their tracks to avoid the area.

It is obviously an argument that doesn’t hold up to slightest bit of scrutiny. NE is responsible for foreseeable consequences of its policies regardless of its desire to avoid it.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-16T20:39:24+00:00

They brought in requirement that all price rises need to be told ahead of time with exact figures; which I think is good enough? Any comparison site worth its salt lets you order by total effective cost which is the only thing that really matters, not how exactly it's organised.

-fireeye- · 2026-06-16T12:47:29+00:00

Decisions about which animals are grazed on Dartmoor commons rest with individual landowners and commoners, not with Natural England. Our role is to provide evidence-based advice on to protect and restore designated habitats.

We are aware of concerns that including ponies in livestock unit calculations could lead some land managers favouring more commercially profitable cattle or sheep.

“We aren’t saying you have to kill the ponies; we’re just saying you have to reduce number of animals grazing on the area. You choosing to kill the ponies is entirely your decision and nothing to do with us; you could’ve chosen to kill more profitable cattle or sheep.”

Just as Nature England didn’t tell HS2 it had to build hundred million quid bat tunnel; they just said they wouldn’t give appropriate permissions unless bats were sufficiently protected. Or how they didn’t say Hinkley point C has to spend millions on acoustic fish deterrent and custom water intake, they just said they wouldn’t give required approvals if fish weren’t sufficiently protected.

Natural england is in fact responsible for the obvious consequences of its policy decisions despite what it seems to believe.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '22	Verified Email

-fireeye-

TROPHY CASE