this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
13 points (88.2% liked)

UK Politics

4259 readers
340 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
 

I don't know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.

Oh wait... ๐Ÿ˜…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I supect that Starmer was happy to remove a possible rival. Rayner is slightly more leftish than the rest of the cabinet and less of a triangulating, tabloid-grovelling careerist zombie.

[โ€“] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

But now there is a vacancy for the Labour deputy leadership, and Labour members might try to elect somebody who is even more left-wing, so the government might be pushed to the left.

Edit: I'm not saying that a more left-wing deputy leader of Labour is necessarily a bad thing. I'm just saying I don't necessarily believe that Starmer was happy to remove Rayner. "Better the devil you know" and all that - Rayner was a known quantity to Starmer, and she didn't criticise his leadership too much. Now there is a risk of someone critical of the government becoming the deputy leader of Labour, which could give Starmer more problems.