Best Of

Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.

The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.

Sarah bigging up Kemi.

Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment

Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.

Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare

From the NTA’s.

This is the great British Public for you.



Freddie Flintoff - Nearly Died
Rob Burrow - Died
Strictly Amy - Living with cancer
Molly Mae - Split up with her boyfriend

Which one wins the NTA… absolute bollocks #ntaawards


https://x.com/jord9393/status/1965884420617023623?s=61

An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.

Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.

I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.

Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.

I hadn't heard of him either.

Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing.
After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.

Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.

I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".

It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.

It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.

I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.

While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.

I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.

But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.

Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:

https://youtu.be/kK3mOBvudZk?si=JNRo8b6ZVpr_Xqxr

So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.

That right?

Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.

You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.

Nah you're normally more logically consistent than this although I appreciate religion fucks with peoples' logical faculty.

If God's law is perfect then there is one law. If it is "open to interpretation" then there is no God's perfect law because each interpretation accords with each human's thoughts, hopes, fears and prejudices that is doing the interpretation. So there's no point having a God's perfect law. It is wholly man made.

I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.

Absolutely bizarre.
I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.

You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.

You are part of that world, as am I.

It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed

Also the whole “obsession with America” thing goes two ways. Yes we are probably over interested in their affairs, but these days Americans of a certain type are often weirdly well informed about Britain. They know who Farage is, they know about Tommy Robinson, they follow our debates on asylum and free speech etc

Essentially Anglophone politics is blending into one big spicy stew, and social media is the pot and the stove

Agree with your last points.
Wholly regrettable.
American politics is exponentially more polarized, corrupt, and batshit than Britain’s.
Gresham’s law applies.

Fair enough. And yes to American polarisation. Look at THIS. America is in a terrible place

“TMZ announcing the death of Charlie Kirk.

You can hear the staff cheering as they receive the news that Kirk has died.”


https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1966054487270752767?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

It's a race to the bottom - look at Trump Jr's posts about the Pelosi attempted murder. I think parts of the American left have given up on the moral high ground and are now giving as good as they get. Difficult to blame them when you've got constant school shootings and Democrat politicians getting assassinated.

Oh yes absolutely. I don’t buy the idea it’s just the left. Trump is a fucking maniac and he’s in office. I do, however, think the American left is crazier right now, and a greater threat to western civilisation and freedoms, than the right. You will likely disagree. Without wanting to shoot me. Which is good

A part of me just wants them to get on with it now. Have the civil war. The overture is dragging on

Where on earth did Labour find Mike Tapp ?

I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia

Good morning

Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians

This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson

I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now

Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position

Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society

Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump

Since when have we lost our moral compass?

Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.

Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office

This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office

I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue

Gone by Monday

In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job

What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared

Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer

Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good

Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now

When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-farooqi-others.pdf

Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.

Good morning everybody.

And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified.
Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.

Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.

I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.

Absolutely bizarre.
I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.

You've lived in New York for several years, as I have also lived in Ireland, and yet we're both here, online, in a primarily British politics website, discussing the resignation of the British Ambassador to the US.

You are part of that world, as am I.

It’s quite bizarre to see a long term regular on PB - arguably THE online forum for political obsessives - complaining about other commenters being politically obsessed

Its comical.

I’ve been accused of being obsessed with the Lib Dem’s by people who endlessly either post about Reform or Trump.

Anyone here accusing anyone of being obsessed. Physician heal thyself.

Chris Mason (and Sarah Montague) going boots on for Starmer on R4WATO.

The BBC aren't giving this up until Starmer is toast. Mason suggesting to a sneering Montague that this alongside Rayner might be terminal. Also saying that this sacking will really annoy Trump.

Sarah bigging up Kemi.

Sky US correspondent taking no prisoners over attacking Starmer and his judgment

Jeremy Hunt speaking as a former Foreign Secretary on the other hand was very measured. He suggested, because of his relationship with Trump, Mandelson was a risk, but probably one worth taking. He concluded with hindsight these risks don't always work out.

Sunak and Hunt would be a far better PM and COE then the present pare