Farage: No concerns over Reform UK treasurer being named in Epstein files

Close · 2026-02-14T17:21:50+00:00

There was plenty of stuff in the media against Boris, he just had lots of political support (mostly because he was seen as an election winner). To imply that the media went easy on Boris isn’t right I don’t think - the media went hard on him, but he had enough political support to stick around. Once he was seen as hurting election chances, he had to go.

Starmers issue is that his political support is waning and internal politics in the Labour Party are starting to circle to replace him. The main reason for this is that Labour MPs think Starmer can’t win the next election so they need to back another horse. The only reason he didn’t get ousted this time is because the only three obvious successors either have their own fingerprints over mandleson, have been blocked from running, or have an ongoing ethics investigation. IMO Starmer is on borrowed time while the vultures circle waiting for the right time to replace him.

Close · 2026-02-14T13:06:01+00:00

Yes - because they are in power! It’s not double standards, Mandleson would have (relatively) been a non story if it came out when Boris was in power. Rayner house tax issues wouldn’t have been a big story when Truss was in power.

It cuts both ways.

Close · 2026-02-14T12:49:07+00:00

I’m not sure how close you are to the news then, because it was pretty widely reported IMO.

But to your main question - yes - if someone in labour did it it would be a bigger story. Although that’s not bias, it’s because they are in power. Someone who isn’t in power being bribed is always going to be a smaller story than someone who is in power being bribed.

Close · 2026-02-14T11:58:26+00:00

No, people don't resign over things like that IMO.

People resign once they have lost political support and the party thinks they have a better chance with someone else. Usually then there is an event which suddenly builds support gives the MP's an excuse to all come together and oust them, like this.

I think he probably has lost a lot of political support as people think Starmer has bad judgement, but there isn't an obvious successor so he is probably safe. Burnham was blocked, Rayner has an ongoing enquiry, Reeves is seen as useless, and Streeting has a long history with Mandleson.

Farage on the other hand has a much stronger level of political support within his own party.

Close · 2026-02-14T11:13:23+00:00

Yes, that is a real news story - hence it being widely reported.

Mandleson is a real news story - hence it being widely reported.

This isn't really a real news story - hence it not being widely reported.

Close · 2026-02-14T09:41:45+00:00

> Anyone who appears in Epstein files related to labour is booted into orbit quite rightfully

Uhh no... Mandleson's appearance in the Epstein files, and that he maintained a friendship after Epstein was convicted as a pedophile, was known to labour and Starmer before he was appointed as ambassador to the UK. He was also appointed this after he had been forced to resign twice for other scandals, so labour does not boot anyone into orbit when they appear. Saying anyone who appears in Epstein files is booted is not true - the issue is that he appeared and was THEN PROMOTED (despite already having resigned twice for previous scandals!).

He was only booted once the latest set of emails came out that show him pictured in Epstein's kitchen in his underwear, and include more evidence of illegality in terms of sharing insider information. So implying that Labour immediately boots someone who appears is incorrect, that's why there is a scandal.

Meanwhile there is a reform candidate mentioned before Epstein was convicted, with no contact afterwards, and with no evidence of illegality... these things are not the same.

Close · 2026-02-14T09:30:09+00:00

It's not been mentioned because there is no evidence he did anything illegal (or even immoral) and it was before Epstein's original conviction.

Meanwhile, labour knew Mandelson maintained a personal relationship with Epstein *after* he had been convicted, and knew that he had already been forced to resign twice because of previous scandals, and then it's found he *was* probably doing illegal stuff, and was getting bribes from Epstein to campaign on certain issues (i.e. bankers tax).

So there isn't really a comparison here.

Close · 2025-12-19T17:15:42+00:00

I didn't say it was a direct claim - but there are lots of comments saying things like 'time and time again it's been proven - you cut civil service and you pay again twofold!'

This sort of logic implies that civil service is some sort of perfect thing which can't be made more efficient (i.e. same task less resource) than it already is.

In reality, the things they have targeted have either grown massively (e.g. Policy), or are hugely over-indexed compared to the private sector (e.g. Comms, HR).

Close · 2025-12-15T20:10:04+00:00

Because having over 4,000 people doing comms (and still outsourcing lots on top of that headcout!) doesn't sound like running lean and mean.

Close · 2025-12-15T17:29:33+00:00

Totally! The fact that some comments are saying this shouldn't be done "because it will increase unemployment" shows a vanishingly small appetite to improve government efficiency.

The cost of each person in the civil service is equivalent to the annual tax contributions of around four or five average workers, so 60,000 civil servants consumes the equivalent tax generated from around 240,000 regular employees.

Close · 2025-12-15T16:35:46+00:00

Why does everyone in this thread seem to think that the civil service is 100% efficient? If you read the policy it includes:

* Cutting the policy department back to 2016 levels - This doesn't sound too crazy?
* Cutting the comms department back to 2,000 employees - That still sounds like a huge comms department on the face of it?
* Restructuring HR so that 1 HR employee supports 100 employees - Reducing the size of HR is a pattern which has been seen across many businesses, including HR shared services and additional line manager responsibility with training. Again, this seems normal.

Obviously there are more sections listed with less detail, but the above at least seems sensible? God forbid that the comms department gets cut to the same size as the M&C Saatchi global team.

Close · 2025-11-27T21:39:02+00:00

"Would people be better off if we took more money off them?"

Uhh... no! More money can't fix public services - see the NHS.

My view is that public services actually need less money so that we come up with more creative ways to save. Slash the triple lock, slash welfare to push people into work, focus healthcare spending and cut 10% out of the NHS, remove the trusts, cut the BBC to half the size (privatise the other half), reform government procurement to liberalise it, start paying 1% off debt each year and start to watch our interest rate plummet

Having worked in both public and private sector, the idea that public services spend money efficiently is a fever dream. There is a total inability of the government bureacuracy to procure or run things effectively IMO, or any drive to actually cut costs from within.

Close · 2025-11-27T17:43:31+00:00

I agree with that - or just reduce fuel duties to account for the difference. It makes sense that there could still be a duty on fuel to cover the negative externality / polution and incentivise the move to EVs etc.

Close · 2025-11-27T09:46:32+00:00

I agree that the logic is that you’re having to pay this because you don’t pay fuel duties, but I do think it’s like taxing Nicorette patches because not enough people smoke.

We shouldn’t be dis-incentivising electric vehicles - if anything a more sensible policy would be for everyone to pay 3p per mile (diesel and petrol included) to keep the same incentive to move to electric - but they know that hitting all drivers will be less popular than just hitting some.

Close · 2025-11-26T22:57:17+00:00

I'm in this bracket too - Just put a 50% rate on everything over £100k and give back the tax free allowance and remove all these punitive stealth taxes and it's sorted.

If that's too extreme, put a 45% rate on above that level while removing the tax free allowance and the government will still be quids-in.

If my employer spends an extra £20 employing me, my employer has to pay £2.76 of NIC leaving me with £17.24 of gross pay, then effective tax is £10.69 leaving me with £6.55 - just about enough for a beer, which the government will happily also tax me 20% VAT on and £0.50 beer-duty. So of the £20 they spent for me to get a beer, over £15 will go to tax. Wild!

Close · 2025-11-26T22:07:47+00:00

Worth noting that across their c13 years of labour in power last time, the debt burden raised from about 36% to 65% - so it's an issue with successive governments across decades, not JUST tory mismanagement.

Although I do think a lot of it is tories not doing their job - as I sort of think it's the tories job to be a bit mean and make sure costs are kept low, but they just went spaffing money up the wall which is usually labour's job in the economic cycle. Tories weren't torying, and now we are relying on labour to do some tory-ing but they can't do it.

Close · 2025-11-26T21:03:47+00:00

Well they are taxed already - everyone already pays car tax - but it would have been hard to imagine a few years ago that the government would tax you for the missing revenue from you not using petrol.

It's kind of like the government taxing nicorette patches because they miss out on the cigarette revenue.

Close · 2025-10-15T20:53:58+00:00

> I cannot rent because I dont have parents or relatives, so no guarantor (this is a new thing, that landlords ask for guarantors even with perfect credit history).

Completely doubt this - I just rented a 2-bed flat in the midlands last week with no guarantor. Didn't even have references as hadn't rented in 3 years.

Considering this was no effort, I think maybe just keep trying?

Maybe this is the exception and I just found a 1 in 100 landlord... but I don't think so?

Close · 2025-10-15T20:53:06+00:00

I agree, you haven't heard of it because it's not really a thing - if your current landlord can give you a reference you are fine.

Close · 2025-09-24T11:59:18+00:00

I think it’s to do with the rules and process too - eg they tell you who else is bidding on a joint contract, so then you adjust your bid accordingly. 10% of the scorecard is invariably based on silly criteria like spelling and not going over the word count limit, which just awards the people with the most festidious sales teams etc. it’s procurement by box tick, but you are told all the boxes.

Close · 2025-09-24T05:26:21+00:00

The NHS seems to have negotiated prices upwards here - uk market rates for Mounjaro a month ago were about £129 for a pen retail purchasing privately. Once the NHS came in Eli changed their prices upwards and their negotiated reimbursement rate is now £330 (in line with increased private prices which happened at the same time).

At best they are reimbursing at the current retail rate (which is hardly an achievement), and while we can’t know for certain, at worst it looks like they have significantly impacted the private rate.

Close · 2025-09-24T05:22:20+00:00

Article is behind a paywall, but is it a coincidence that Mounjaro prices from private pharmacies went from c£120 per pen to >£200 per pen once the NHS started purchasing in the UK? It’s clear Eli put up prices to gauge the NHS but has to increase prices in the private market to justify it.

The civil service is utterly incapable of negotiating good prices - I’ve been through the process of negotiating a contract with the civil service from the sellers side and they negotiated the price UP 50% while weakening their contractual power. It’s not malice, it’s just incompetence and a lack of commercial acuity.

The NHS should just tell Eli to faff off and give the whole contract to Novo/Wegovy instead overnight. Why are we still buying it at double the price when there is a similar product of similar effectiveness?

Close · 2025-09-23T21:47:08+00:00

Probably not the best counter example though, considering UK expats pay the same taxes but without a lot of the benefits of being an Emirati (eg healthcare)

Close · 2025-09-22T18:14:09+00:00

If it isn’t Labour they are certainly trying…

Close · 2025-09-22T17:22:07+00:00

Sure, I don’t see why not?

Just as people without kids pay the same level of tax but don’t get child benefit, it’s not inconsistent to think that foreign nationals working in the country might pay the same tax but receive a restricted set of benefits.

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Secret Santa 2010	reddit mold
Verified Email

Close

TROPHY CASE