Best Of

This is an interesting dynamic.

The GOP media posting clips of Talarico as attacks on him. And he keeps replying, yes, I approve this message.

JAMES TALARICO: “Christ is the immigrant deported without due process. Christ is the senior deprived of their Social Security benefits. Christ is the protestor kidnapped in an unmarked vehicle by plain clothes officers.”..
https://x.com/NRSC/status/2031442594983498169

It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Can Texas handle a genuine Christian?

Would they recognise one?

Well.
Several megachurch pastors have denounced him as "Satanic".
His crime? Using scripture to raise difficulty questions.
And "campaigning on the Bible".
Irony gone to heaven.

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

Huzzah.

Hereditary peers to be removed from the House of Lords after deal struck

Agreement broke a months-long impasse over

Sir Keir Starmer has cleared the way for removing hereditary peerages from the House of Lords after a deal was struck to offer extra spots to some of those who will lose their seats within months.

A compromise was reached that The Times has been told will see 15 Conservative Party members of the House of Lords, whose positions were passed down by bloodline, continue as life peers.

The agreement broke a months-long impasse over one of the biggest constitutional reforms in decades, as peers agreed to let the legislation pass its final stage without a vote on Tuesday night.

The Lords agreed with the Commons on a final draft of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) bill.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-hereditary-peerages-deal-house-of-lords-mxnf60hl0

More in Common better for Labour
➡️ REF UK 30% (+1)
🌹 LAB 22% (+4)
🌳 CON 19% (nc)
🔶 LIB DEM 13% (-1)
🌍 GREEN 11% (-3)
🟡 SNP 2% (-1)

N = 2,112 | 6-9/3| Change w 2/03

Sounds like the pollsters have less in common?

It has Starmers ratings up a bit to -41 but also Badenochs up to -6 and she leads the pack for the first time.

Labour were at 21 2 weeks ago and 22 3 weeks ago so this is a reversion to long term mean with MiC plus a smidgen with a small Starmer boost

Big picture is that Reform are solidly ahead, but their lead is drifting down and it doesn't look like enough to win the next GE.

Labour and Con are neck and neck. On that basis, I'd rather be the red team than the blue. Libs are probably doing fine where they want to, having opted out of the national game. Greens have come out of nowhere, and I don't think anyone really knows how well they are doing.

Pardon my ignorance - what is a Love Actually moment? (I know it's the name of a film.)

The American President is a bit of a nob, so Hugh Grant, who is the PM, calls him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMJcZpvyNok

Whilst Hugh Grant is also a nob.

A much reviled film.

Behave, it's one of my favourite films.

Also it is the only Christmas film Alan Rickman starred in.

Lovely if you're in the right mood, but it hasn't dated well.

Not as badly as, say, Love Thy Neighbour, but a sign of how the world changes.

I love RomComs Love Actually helped me pluck up the courage to tell my parents that I wasn't going to have an arranged marriage but I was actually in love and in a relationship with somebody for the last 18 months.

Up to that moment they believed I was a good Muslim who was focussing on his career.

Just out…Behr on the money in the Guardian:

Waging war with no fixed purpose means victory can be declared at any point. Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes.

The White House seems not to have anticipated the predictable economic repercussions of war in the Middle East – soaring oil prices, falling stock markets, disrupted supply chains feeding inflation and choking growth. A tacit deal has come into view. Forget freedom. Iranians can still be repressed as long as shipping through the strait of Hormuz is unmolested. Another push for regime change is possible, but no one should be surprised by retreat to lesser goals. This is the Trump method.

The biggest non-combatant beneficiary from Operation Epic Fury has been Vladimir Putin. [Although] It isn’t all upside for the Kremlin. Iranian drones, a vital part of Putin’s arsenal, won’t be shipped to Moscow if they are needed closer to home. It is humiliating for the Russian president to stand impotently by while an old ally takes a sustained aerial battering. [But] In the longer term, Putin is served by reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges.

Kemi Badenoch’s eagerness to involve Britain in an open-ended conflict and dread of losing Trump’s favour preclude any wariness of a notoriously unreliable president. She believes the prime minister owes him not just military assistance but unquestioning obedience. Nigel Farage was similarly gung-ho at first, but the Reform UK leader’s political antennae are well enough tuned to public opinion that he has since adjusted his message to a more sceptical frequency. Is it official Conservative policy that Britain should always submit to the whims of a venal narcissist surrounded by kleptocrats, sycophants and ultranationalist maniacs? Or is it only when they beat the drum for war that we must follow? Neither position makes sense as a blueprint for British foreign policy.

Making Trump feel great is the undoing of American greatness. In arrogating power to himself, the president undermines the foundations of his country’s strength in the world and damages its allies. To define Britain’s national interest as loyalty to the White House administration is absurd when the US’s own national interest would most be served by regime change in Washington.

Putin is a massive loser, not a winner, from this conflict.

When he invaded Ukraine, the US, the UK and other western allies stood behind Ukraine offering assistance.

He has however been shown to be utterly impotent in the face of his ally getting pounded, has not been able to assist them at all, and worse has lost the supply of Shahed drones he was using to kill Ukrainians.

As for "reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges" . . . Only an utter imbecile thinks Russia was not already living by that doctrine anyway.

They always have.

Armenia, Maduro, Assad, and the Iranian leadership have all learned that Russia is a worthless ally to have. Other countries will take note.