Best Of

More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?

"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?

I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him

It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)

Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.

An argument that might have a bit more strength if, just this last week, Musky Baby had not attended cabinet dressed like a hobo.

There was zero criticism of him from the same people who are apparently offended by Zelenskyy's attire.

Because it's ridiculous criticism; designed solely to attack Z.

To attract Trump back to the UK to meet Zelensky before the state visit, you'd need something that appealed to his vanity, but also with the kind of aristocratic connotations he enjoys.

Blenheim Palace, birthplace of Churchill, birthplace of Chutchill, physically very beautiful setting, no Vance or Zelensky's team - just the two of them. If you're Starner you have to try every avenue like this.

Trump has already been there and done that

Also Balmoral, perhaps.
Scotland + aristocratic.

Civic reception in Stornoway, a guided tour of the black pudding factory and then some fudged up freedom of the island conferment from the Lord of the Isles in Lews Castle.

Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.

Nope. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now. At least in the form it was suggested which was an EU army. As I pointed out yesterday it would exclude some of our most important allies, would be utterly ineffective as it would include countries like Hungary who are openly favourable to Russia and would be riven with disagreement about what actions it should or should not take.

Far more effective to reconfigure either the JEF or NATO without the obvious trouble makers.

The point is the United States used to be one of our most important allies. There is no guarantee that the French, the Germans, the Finns, the Poles might not turn in the future, particularly if Russia's influence is allowed to grow.

I'm sceptical of the need for an increase in defence spending, if our European/Commonwealth allies hold. But I would support if it if some of our more essential functions are taken in-house, including an independent Trident, defending energy/telecoms cables in the North Sea, increasing industrial capacity for armanents and so on. None of this arbitrary %age of GDP nonsense.

Unusual for me, but this is one area where I feel integrating closely with Europe could go as badly wrong as it has with the Americans.

And for everyone saying that Starmer was wrong yesterday to not give outspoken support to Zelenskyy, the latest is that Zelenskyy is coming to London to speak to the PM because he's the only European leader who still has open dialogue with Trump.

I'm not a fan of Starmer as many of you know, yet it was the right decision to keep his own counsel last night and not hastily post some feel good virtue signalling nonsense on Twitter last night like the rest of Europe's leaders. He's being vindicated today, Zelenskyy has come to London, not to Paris. Starmer got real commitments from Trump and has clearly been able to work with Trump better than the rest of them. We need that more than ever right now, not to hastily throw it away to make ourselves feel better for 5 minutes for being "on the right side of history".

Was last night a tipping point? Possibly for many - I see the powerful comments of Robert Jenrick as a hopeful sign that a section of the right sees it that way now, but there's still work to be done.
But supporting and defending Trump (and Vance) is rapidly becoming like supporting Putin and their invasion of Russia: a point of view that, if not quite yet, will shortly be seen as actively betraying our country.
I see GB News has decided that it was all Zelenskyy's fault. I presume that that wll be Reform's line as well, as their tailwagging devotion to Trump continues.

Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?

They are absolutely part of, and on the side of, global gangsterism. Which is, I think, how we should think about it from a "geopolitical alignment" point of view. It's got nothing to do with left/right or east/west.

FPT:

What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.

I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.

Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense

Watch the WHOLE press conference

I mean specifically the Labour representatives going to campaign for Harris. I didn't see Trump or Vance use that against Starmer; did I miss it?

I think that all of this is a series of tactical exaggerations / misrepresentations, tbh.

Here is an FT piece about a group of Republicans coming to the UK in 2015 to help the Tories campaign in marginal seats. Campaigning with sister parties over the pond is just normal, and has been so since the time of Mrs Thatcher, and perhaps earlier (I wasn't around).
https://www.ft.com/content/48d94f08-e82b-11e4-9960-00144feab7de

The President of Ukraine visiting a US Munitions plant with a representative of the US Govt to thank the workers for making shells for his country is actually exactly what Vance was demanding, ie gratitude. The issue is perhaps the Vance fantasises about the state as politicised against him. Vance's demands about "have you thanked us" are nonsense, the USA already having been thanked again at the start of the meeting. I say Vance's upset is entirely tactical.

The free speech stuff is weird. The examples in Vance's Munich speech were fabrications - whether because he's manipulating or because he's ignorant I cannot tell. "Facebook poster jailed for hurty words" claims I have seen have almost all been for far more serious offences, such as calling for hotels full of brown people to be burnt down with the brown people still in them. That's an attempted wedge issue by elements on the Right of our politics, in the hope of using talking points that used to belong to the BNP and similar to build a support base.

IMO it's all mainly Trump & Vance reacting to images they have projected on the inside of their own heads, or a deliberate political tactic. Vance gets seriously harsh when anyone refuses to kneel down and lick the boots.

I do think that we are too prone to police speech in this country, but Vance needs to look to his own country’s sins.

We don’t, by and large, have local authorities trying to ban books, or the police summarily executing people for Driving While Black.

More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?

"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?

I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him

It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)

Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.

An argument that might have a bit more strength if, just this last week, Musky Baby had not attended cabinet dressed like a hobo.

There was zero criticism of him from the same people who are apparently offended by Zelenskyy's attire.

Because it's ridiculous criticism; designed solely to attack Z.

Power, even ownership.

Trump and Vance and MAGA either think they own Zelensky, or that they should. So they can make remarks about what he's wearing.

They know, however unconsciously, that Musk owns them. So he can do whatever he damn well likes.

If you are punched from above, the temptation is always to punch down. Some even see it as nature's way. More curiously, some people near the top of the pecking order like the occasional punch from even higher. Maybe it's validating all the punches they thrown down.