Keir Starmer was elected as an MP to represent a constituency and he’s given up on them, why couldn’t he just stay as an MP and not cost the taxpayer for a bi-election. At a time where it already feels like we’re having a monthly bi-election and Labour aren’t winning them, why shouldn’t he just keep his seat for the party and country, that he supposedly loves so much.

Apparently the UK's determination to write terrible policy hoping economics suddenly works differently also happens in Scotland.

Another example of why I'm in favour of devolution - local areas can try out ideas and when things go terribly in that area we can conclude they were stupid ideas and focus on other ones.

I follow politics both on the left and the right, personally I would say I was bang centre, scrolling though Facebook and (x) now is a cess pit people don't have any idea they are watching AI videos it's getting so good.

I don't use social media anymore only really Reddit it totally scares me of what is to come, everything I watch now I need to try and fact check it authentity. The scary part for me is this is only the tip of the ice burg I am genuinely a sceptic i take most things with a pinch of salt but soon this will be affecting politics even the reality of the prescription of the world

The most chilling thing there is nothing to stop it. I don't mean to sound like a Luddite.

This is why I’m skeptical of the claims Starmer was the “worst PM” ever or that he’s stepping down from his MP position for “selfish, arrogant” reasons.

Yes, when you’re bombarded with headlines like this daily, it’s easy to see why someone might think his government was terrible.

When everything you do is portrayed as either a selfish plot, an institutional disaster, a bribe, a dictatorship, or an attempt to “rig” the system, then of course voters develop a negative perception of you.

That doesn’t mean the portrayal has been fair, though.

People will argue that this is just the rightwing papers. Yes, and lots of voters still read those papers, and thus, didn’t exactly get a balanced view of Starmer’s tenure.

It’s valid to say that Starmer is bad at doing politics and should’ve had better narrative control. That’s separate to claiming he’s evil and the worst PM in history, though.

It certainly doesn’t justify the lies that spread during his tenure, like the claims he hired “Ukrainian rentboys” who then burned his property because they were “jealous”.

Like, WTF? That arson attack on his property was basically a national security issue affecting a national leader, with links to Russia, and people still chose to lie about it.

Amidst this hostile environment, I’m not surprised Starmer is leaving mainstream politics.

I just find it a shame that MPs like him get hounded out of their jobs while the likes of Nigel Farage get re-elected as MP even though they do LITERALLY nothing but lie and grift.

The new guidance for schools is being introduced this week which makes it life significantly harder for trans children.

A summary of some of the key points:

• There is no mention of "trans" children whatsoever - they are referred to as "gender-questioning" children
• Trans children are treated as a "safeguarding" issue
• Trans children are segregated out of using the facilities according to their gender
• Teachers have impunity to deadname or use the wrong pronouns
• There is a heavy presumption in favour of involving and telling parents if a child wants to transition, risking outing children to absuive parents
• There are heavy barriers against socially transitioning in school
• Trans people are to be treated as a 'debate'
• Schools are discouraged from any materials that show transitioning as a "simple" solution (not clear what this means, could be interpreted quite broadly) as well as "encouraging children to question their gender"

What this means for trans children is sadly quite clear. Increased risk of bullying, mental harm, physical health issues (such as starving/dehydrating to avoid using bathrooms), isolation/not going to school at all, abuse from unsupportive parents and so on. It's very depressing.

Sources:

https://www.scenemag.co.uk/dr-natacha-kennedy-the-governments-guide-to-harming-trans-children-in-school/

https://www.ilga-europe.org/news/uk-governments-final-kcsie-guidance-fails-to-protect-trans-non-binary-and-intersex-children-and-young-people/

https://justlikeus.org/statement-on-the-keeping-children-safe-in-education-kcsie-draft-guidance-regarding-gender-questioning-children/

https://diva-magazine.com/2026/07/30/we-need-to-do-more-to-protect-trans-children-at-school/

https://www.theproudtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/download-manager-files/KSCIE%20response%20guide%20for%20Allsorts%20Kite%20Trust%20Proud%20Trust.pdf

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/english-schools-to-segregate-trans-kids-from-toilets-including-those-whove-already-transitioned-from-september/

And the link to the guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

Restore Britain is facing a revolt from a Hitler sympathiser who accused Rupert Lowe of “terrible” leadership.

Steve Laws, a self-declared ethno-nationalist, quit the party after Restore chiefs refused to back hard-line figures in the party.

The far-Right activist announced his departure on Saturday with a swipe at Mr Lowe, the party’s leader and founder, citing “horrendous decisions and refusal to defend the membership”.

The row centres on comments by Orla Minihane, Restore’s spokesman on the safety of women and girls, who argued that all British girls deserved protection against abuse, regardless of their families’ heritage.

At an event held by Restore’s Gateshead branch, she said: “We’ve got to protect our girls, but we have to remember that there are Indian, Asian girls, Pakistani girls, Bangladeshi girls, Somalian girls, who were born here, who are suffering this fate every day. And we have got to protect them also.”

The comments prompted a backlash from hard-line figures linked to Restore on social media, who argued that “white native girls are our priority” and “our own come first”.

And they were furious when other senior figures backed Ms Minihane.

Ms Minihane hit back at her critics in a statement on X, writing: “Tomorrow is another day and I’ll continue to fight for our women and girls as I do every solitary day, until each and every one of them is safe and secure in this nation we call home!

“Abuse being dished out by faceless people who shout about patriotism whilst they hide behind keyboards bullying those who actually stand up publicly and face the consequences. How very brave of you – bravo!”

She was backed by Howard Cox, Restore’s transport spokesman, who argued that her detractors were “jealous scumbags, pathetic amoebas who get off behind their keyboards”.
He added: “Your work has been nothing but brilliant. You are doing God’s work. And we will prevail.”

But online supporters of Restore warned that “trashing the base isn’t really a smart move”.

Key highlights from Carbon Brief’s analysis of the new scenarios include:

- The seven new scenarios give a range of global warming in 2100 from 1.6C to 3.3C above pre-industrial levels – markedly narrower than the 1.5C to 4.7C range in their SSP predecessors.

- The top of the scenario range has fallen for the first time in four generations of climate modelling. The highest scenarios used in the three previous IPCC assessment cycles all produced around 4.6-4.9C of global warming in 2100, whereas CMIP7’s high scenario only reaches 3.3C and has around half the cumulative CO2 emissions.

- The new “medium” scenario that is analogous to policies in place today reaches 2.9C in 2100, crossing 2C around 2050 and 3C around 2110, with a one-in-four chance of exceeding 4C by 2150.

- The lowest scenarios have shifted modestly upwards, as a future that avoids any overshoot of 1.5C is no longer considered plausible. The very-low scenario peaks at around 1.8C mid-century before falling back close to 1.5C by 2100.

Some good news, in that the highest potentials have been reduced, but some bad news in that the lowest potentials have been increased and 1.5c is now no longer plausible.

“When I first came to Parliament, people used to ask whether the Labour Prime Minister was secretly a Tory. These days they ask me whether the Labour Prime Minister is secretly a Lib Dem. Social care, devolution, changing politics: all straight from the Liberal Democrat playbook.

As MPs return to Westminster, it is time to see if, unlike the conveyor belt of Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers before him, Andy Burnham will be able to lift our country out of the post-Brexit malaise we are trapped in.

Seven Prime Ministers in ten years. Nine Chancellors, nine Health Secretaries, ten Education Secretaries. Change starts, then stops, then starts again in a different direction. Wages are flat, costs are going up, and our countryside is burning or flooding, or both. Our maternity wards are unsafe, our rivers are polluted, and our young people can’t find work.

While things get harder for the vast majority of people across Britain, you can’t help but feel that those who pull the strings have never had it so good.

Whether it is the water company boss who keeps their bonus after the sewage spill, the ministers who oversee failing maternity wards and crumbling hospitals, or the crypto billionaires and convicted fraudsters bankrolling political parties as if Britain is their latest plaything, there’s a sense that the rules simply don’t apply to them any more. Failure costs them nothing, while British families pay the price.

The Prime Minister changes but the country does not, and until we change the system, it never will. Our country feels broken and our politics definitely is.

This week Parliament debates the Representation of the People Bill, and I believe it should be our generation’s 1918 moment, when an Act of the same name finally gave women the vote. So, for the first time as Liberal Democrat leader I will sign a Labour backbencher’s amendment to establish a national commission on electoral reform, and I am asking every party to back my colleague Lisa Smart’s amendments to cap donations, shut out foreign interference and force real transparency.

I know what some people think about electoral reform: it’s a nerdy obsession for political anoraks.

And whilst I happily class myself as one of those anoraks, electoral reform is the difference between a politics that has to earn your vote and one that can take it for granted. Liberal Democrats have always campaigned for electoral reform, but always as the means to real change, never the end.

Liberal Democrats are in politics to change politics. We want to change politics to change lives.

I’m fighting for the young couple expecting their first baby, for the family coming to terms with how they will care for an elderly relative, for the small business owner trying to stay afloat, and for all those in Britain working hard to get ahead.

For too many people, Britain isn’t working as it should. Everything that once felt straightforward now feels difficult. But I don’t believe Britain is broken. It is being held back chronically.
Held back by a system that protects the people who fail, and rewards those who choose the easy options, instead of being brave enough to take the tough decisions that would set our country free.

Striking a bold new deal with Europe to grow our economy and strengthen our defence. Freeing up small businesses and cutting your energy bills.

Fixing the NHS and social care so you can see a GP when you need one, and your loved ones get the care they need – in their own home whenever possible. That is the change Liberal Democrats are fighting for, but it will take a different kind of politics to make it happen.

Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch will tell you none of this is their fault, defend a broken system that works for them, and point the finger at the people with the least power. We will be out fighting for everyone, because it is our job to hold the powerful to account and to put real power in your hands.

So this week, when Parliament votes on something that sounds dry and procedural, remember what it is really about. I will be thinking about the people it will affect: that young couple, that family, that small business owner.

It is about building a politics that answers to them, and to you, not to the people who pull the strings.”