[Abernathy]

As always, you never really know. The test of this sort of stuff is plausibility. And it's very plausible backbenchers wouldn't fancy being on the hook for it.

And I can give you one name- Lucy Powell, because she said so. And she got elected Deputy Leader as a voice for backbenchers.

Well, yes. Probably so, especially since Powell is no longer in the cabinet, so not bound by the principle of collective responsibility. But other ministers are, so TWA’s confident assertion can only be based on Chinese whispers.

[kreuzberger]

Please be specific - how many and who? Or was that just media fluff?

The BBC was, this morning, desperate to shine their light of journalistic rigour on outrage which - er - didn't really exist, save a few barely audible grumbles.

At least is distracted them from reading out bits of the daily-fucking-mail, claiming that Rach is sleeping with Kim Jong-un (or something).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Please be specific - how many and who? Or was that just media fluff?

I don't have a specific list of names Malcolm. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that some were wary about breaking a key pledge.

If we don't know who they are we don't know their reliability or whatever agenda they may be pursuing, so this report is worthless at best. Why is this so hard to understand?

[The Weeping Angel]

As Tubbs pointed out Lucy Powell objected.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

One person.

One is a point, two are a line, three is a trend...


And I suspect she has an agenda - replace Starmer with Burnham.

[The Weeping Angel]

She is the deputy leader.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

She is the deputy leader.

Unless my reason is leaving me she is still one person. Or is maths now dismissed in your world?

[The Weeping Angel]

It's not implausible that backbenchers and some ministers were wary about breaking a manifesto pledge. Given the likely backlash it would have caused. Powell wouldn't have said what she said in a vacuum.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Powell is the newly elected Deputy Leader who ran on representing backbenchers. Would seem a bit odd to immediately spout something that she hadn’t heard any backbenchers say.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Reeves can’t win. Would have been more progressive to increase the threshold and increase the rate, as many have pointed out. But equally one big problem our tax system has is that while the tax system is already progressive but the base is too narrow- as pointed out by lots of the same people. I’ve seen literally one person, BTL on The Guardian, pointing out that freezing the threshold makes the base broader, and in that respect it’s a good thing.

And giving in to backbenchers, or whatever, is surely no shame if it produces good policy. I don’t get why it’s being presented like that, which is a Badenoch line. It’s not like she called and lost a referendum on EU membership or anything.