Best Of

Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.

Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen_Deeside_and_North_Kincardine

Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held

Expect beef prices to soar, possibly by the midterms.

Ranchers are refusing to self-report screwworm in their cattle. Why? USDA policy means a positive find triggers quarantine/confiscation of the whole herd—risking everything they’ve built. Renée’s right. This is killing cooperation. 🐄

Used to work: Send in a sample. If positive, USDA releases sterile flies (SIT) that mate with wild ones & crash the population—no mass slaughter.

That’s how we eradicated it before.

Now they’re pushing a $750M sterile fly facility in Edinburg, TX while scaring producers silent. Fix the incentives! Look it up: sterile insect technique worked for decades.
https://x.com/anttsinc/status/2063023323710210207

People who can't fucking spell Edinburgh properly deserve everything they get.

O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.

That would be an artificial constraint given they were seeking readers' favourite books.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a great book and deserves to be in there imo. Indeed, the order is not what I would have chosen I'd say it's a pretty good list - better than the critics and authors who tended to pretentious ponceyness.

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Dai
ly Mail.

(Edited)

Manufactured outrage is central to the radical right's approach. It's all about generating clicks on social media. We've seen this with MAGA. The only problem comes when you try to run a country, you're still manufacturing outrage, but people start to notice that you don't actually have a foreign policy that works, and you don't have a response for human and animal health risks, etc.

Dropping back in briefly, one thing I would like to see some serious study on is how much of the UK's radical right outrage bubble is actually an influence operation whether from elements in the USA, previously from Hungary, or from Russia - and what the routes of that influence have been.

International untraceable funding is one issue for the Govt to pick up in their funding overhaul, alongside many others.

I wonder if someone like the group at Sheffield Hallam who dug into online of MPs have been on it?

There is a pervasive and very successful social media campaign in Ukraine to convince them that the SMO and conscription system is engineered to wipe them out so that they can be replaced, in a Great manner, by immigrants from SE and Central Asia. This is almost certainly what's behind the recent spate of punch ups in L'vov and Odessa between the muzhiki and the conscription snatch squads.

I do wonder who is paying for it because it's very slick and must get millions of impressions every day. Russians? Americans? It feels more like product of a Western culture than a Slavic one but who the fuck knows?

Being serious (I sometyimes do serious), there is also an entrepreneurial stream. I have seen some from India, who recognise that they can grift profitably online just as Tommy Robinson and his various mini-me Tommy Robinsons do (eg "Active Patriot", who was the main pusher of the demonstration in Ashfield last year).

Was not "inevitable west" exposed as Indian, as were a whole layer of Russian Cybernats who temporarily went off air when Russia had internet problems iirc?

Here's an account from Wired (April) of an Indian medical student who generated an AI fake female conservative influencer called Emily Hart looking like Jennifer Lawrence, and says he made thousands a month from less than one hour per day, and put her on an OnlyFans copycat site. MAGA Loofs (and their UK versions) are not known for IQs of 150 and hinterland.
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-generated-maga-girls/

There's an appetite for it.

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)

As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.

But if you did need £500 cash in a hurry, surely you could always sell your footwear?

Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.

It's the Guardian.

What would your picks be, Casino ?

Billy Britain out of Viz on all denominations. End of discussion.

A case could be made for the Fat Slags.

But if its got to be wildlife - then Billy the Fish?

Wildlife = The Pathetic Sharks

I used to have a T-shirt featuring them. Plus one with Sid the Sexist "The Silver-Tongued Cavalier".

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Dai
ly Mail.

(Edited)

Manufactured outrage is central to the radical right's approach. It's all about generating clicks on social media. We've seen this with MAGA. The only problem comes when you try to run a country, you're still manufacturing outrage, but people start to notice that you don't actually have a foreign policy that works, and you don't have a response for human and animal health risks, etc.

Dropping back in briefly, one thing I would like to see some serious study on is how much of the UK's radical right outrage bubble is actually an influence operation whether from elements in the USA, previously from Hungary, or from Russia - and what the routes of that influence have been.

International untraceable funding is one issue for the Govt to pick up in their funding overhaul, alongside many others.

I wonder if someone like the group at Sheffield Hallam who dug into online of MPs have been on it?

There is a pervasive and very successful social media campaign in Ukraine to convince them that the SMO and conscription system is engineered to wipe them out so that they can be replaced, in a Great manner, by immigrants from SE and Central Asia. This is almost certainly what's behind the recent spate of punch ups in L'vov and Odessa between the muzhiki and the conscription snatch squads.

I do wonder who is paying for it because it's very slick and must get millions of impressions every day. Russians? Americans? It feels more like product of a Western culture than a Slavic one but who the fuck knows?

Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.

Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.

Depends on Andy Burnham winning, of course.

I did not care about Burnham until finding last week that I'd backed him ages ago for next PM, so come on Andy! But Makerfield voting for the plumber would be almost as seismic.

The Makerfield Misogynist you mean.

The gender differences in the Survation poll of Makerfield are quite exceptional, a 17% Labour lead amongst women compared to only 2% amongst men, a much bigger gender variation than in national polling. It suggests to me that Kenyon's misogyny has not gone unnoticed by women and has had some impact on voting intention.