this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
49 points (98.0% liked)

UK Politics

4353 readers
104 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Patch@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Makes sense from an internal party management point of view. Rayner remains a popular figure with the membership and the left of the party. Starmer might have known that he was going to end up needing to sack her, but it's useful for him (not always the most popular figure with that crowd) to show some support for her and avoid sticking the knife in. Ultimately the independent ethics report was going to come back with what it came back with, and Starmer and Rayner would both agree that she couldn't remain in role at that point- but at least it doesn't look like Starmer was itching for an excuse.

From the voting public's point of view, I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case. Starmer said he'd wait for the full facts, and then sacked her when he had the full facts. Anyone upset with him for not going a couple of days earlier would probably have been upset with him whatever he did anyway.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rayner remains a popular figure with the membership and the left of the party.

Yeah sure, the union busting, nature destroying, Starmer supporting, tax dodger is popular with the left...

[–] knowone@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Was gunna say, is "the left" just anything that could be considered left of (or even including) Starmer now, even if only a little bit? It's painful where most people's overton window is in the UK. Very clearly overt capitalists being called "left" all the time because they're part of the historically left wing party that obviously hasn't been left wing since the 90s?