Best Of

Good poll for Buttigieg:

#New 2028 Dem primary poll

Kamala Harris - 43%
Pete Buttigieg - 9%
Gavin Newsom - 8%
Tim walz - 7%
Josh Shapiro - 5%
Ocasio-Cortez - 4%

if they pick him they lose. Bigger than this year.

Doesn't it rather depend on how people feel in 2028?

If the Trump administration makes everyone richer, then no matter who the Democrats pick, then there's going to be another Republican in the White House.

While if tariffs result in significant inflation without appreciable job gains, then the Democrats could probably renominate Hillary and win.

Few people are bothered about job gains unless they're gaining one of the jobs.

I don't think that's entirely true. If jobs are scarce, and unemployment rife, then people get nervous. So, maybe it's fair to say that after a certain level, job gains aren't that good, but job losses make everyone feel more... nervous.

That's true.

People are concerned about jobs when either they haven't got one or they're afraid of losing the one they have and not being able to get another.

When those situation don't apply what they prefer is a good pay rise.

Now we're currently in an era of full employment, for that to change to a period of high unemployment would likely require a severe recession.

Which would certainly be not electorally favourable for the current government especially if compounded with tariff induced inflation.

Pre-woke era.

I've been watching Gary W. Gallagher, a prominent historian, and his Great Courses lecture series on the American Civil War recently. It's comprehensive 48-lecture course that covers the political, social, and military aspects of the war all recorded in the year 2000.

One thing he keeps saying in his lectures is how important it is not to apply the values and judgements of today to the people of the time, if we really want to understand what they did and why they did it, but to read what they actually said and actually did in the context of their own time. He does this repeatedly with analysis of the war, the roles played on the war front, home front, and civilian front and displays no judgement or bias in any analysis he delivers on any of it.

Struck me as what an utterly radical point of view that would be today, simple academic objectiveness, and how we truly have gone backwards.

Sorry, but that really is complete tosh. I've spent a lot of time listening to The Rest Is History podcasts by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook recently (while exercising), and they repeatedly make exactly the same point.

I was taught that before CR was even born, I suspect.

But to defend CR’s point, they may say it’s best to do that, but do they actually practice it? And the US Civil War is I think the best example of something only seen these days through modern eyes. Lincoln’s always seen as the saviour, who freed blacks from slavery. But he wanted them all deported back to Africa once freed, didn’t he? Like that’s no different than Trumps position. 🤷‍♀️

No, he didn’t.

In his early years, he was an advocate of Colonisation - the *voluntary return* of freed slaves to Africa.

After he met the leaders of free African Americans (such as Frederick Douglass) who were opposed to this, he changed his mind.

I continually state that we should judge historical figures by the social mores of their time. Colston is seen as a demon now, judged by 21st century people. But at the time he would have been doing nothing out of the ordinary. Some people like to think that if they were born in previous times they would have the same sensibilities as they do today, but we are moulded by our upbringing.

I think Richard Dawkins referenced Lincoln when talking about what he called the shifting moral zeitgeist. I think we can judge people for things that were normal in their times to some extent - there may have been people then who did not share those views - but we do have to understand the context of those times and if it was indeed unexceptional, and a sense of proportion is needed if we're going to, IDK, cancel roman emperors for being slavers or something.

My solution is we put labels on any historical works that state 'the person who produced this will have had different views from today, and there's a decent chance they were racist, sexist, or homophobic by our standards, so let's assume that and move on'.

I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴

I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.

Nah, the greatest living stage actor is Sir Patrick Stewart, Brian Blessed a close second.

Brian Blessed's performance in Flash Gordon was the epitome of subtlety and nuance.

"Gordon's alive?"

I wouldn't have a clue who Simon Russell Beale is..yet the Independent state he's "the greatest living stage actor of his generation" 🤔🥴

I like him - he was superb as Falstaff in the Hollow Crown series - but I think that honour defiently goes to Mark Rylance. I have seen him several times in Shakespeare productions and he is remarkable. I think he is probably the best actor in all fields of his generation.

Agree. Just been watching Rylance in Wolf Hall and he is absolutely mesmerising in an apparently effortless way. I can't quite put my finger on why he's so good, but even when he's silent you can't take your eyes off him.

You actually have put your finger on it. His silence; a stillness that is utterly mesmerising.

Is it any good?

I tried reading Wolf Hall and found the artificiality of Mantel's style insufferable. I guess that's not an issue with the film production, so maybe I should try it?

The first series is superb. The current one I'm not such a fan of - the dialogue isn't as considered as the first series, and the soundtrack is deeply irritating.

Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain

An angrier response to Britain sending missiles to Ukraine than we got when Russia sent assassins to murder British citizens on British soil

Corbyn has Tweeted

The Prime Minister should make a statement to Parliament, immediately, to confirm whether UK missiles have been fired into Russia.

He must tell the British public if this means we are now at war with a nuclear power, what risk this poses to people in Britain, and why this action was taken without any approval from Parliament.

I have consistently condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for a diplomatic solution to stop the endless bloodshed.

As we edge closer and closer to catastrophe, we should be doing everything in our power to bring about de-escalation and peace. Instead, our political leaders have added fuel to the fire and gambled with people’s lives for political gain.

Presidents and Prime Ministers must know that in the event of nuclear war, nobody wins.

I’m not interested in bombs. I’m interested in peace – and I will continue to campaign for peace in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC and beyond.

https://x.com/BenKentish/status/1859309594729943266

He has never agreed that people should be able to fight back, or be helped to do so. He would deny it, but the only practical measure his views accept seems to be that people should just surrender, since that leads to peace the fastest. Whilst there are obviously serious issues to consider for world leaders around escalation, it's hard to see how this marks a severe example of that. If anything, given Russia has gone so far as to essentially hire North Korean state mercenaries as an escalation, the Ukrainian allies doing nothing additional in reaction would appear to be an acceptance of Russian escalation.

He’d support any group that was fighting the British or US, however.

My daughter's school has classrooms named after various historical figures: Lincoln, Mandela, Twain and the like.

While it's a slightly wokier list than I might go for, the names are basically unobjectionable.

Except one: Chomsky.

I keep meaning to write to the school and complain. Because he is a total piece of shit, who shills for essentially any enemy of the West.

Chomsky is intellectually dishonest.

Chomsky is at least a scholar, alone in that list of worthies.

That fact makes his intellectual dishonesty worse.

It’s like Ann Coulter saying awful things, not because she’s stupid, but because she’s extremely intelligent and knows what she’s doing (you have to be very gifted to edit the Michigan Law Review.)