Best Of

Regardless of ideology, the radicalisation of young people through global online forums and social media is a scary prospect as a parent, admittedly of children currently too young to be at risk.

Even as someone who has read a lot about this sort of stuff, who had heard of Kirk before, who knows internet culture quite well going back a long time now, this is damn near impenetrable to me. Whether the politics is left or right one of the things that is becoming common is that solo mass or spree killers, or political assasins, quite often now have links to weird internet subcultures that are off-the-radar of almost everyone else.

Is there any evidence that there are more solo/mass/spree killers since the internet started than before?

That's a fair point, especially on the political side. Let's not forget Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing were before the internet was widely available.

However, I do believe there is evidence that the number of mass school shootings has increased significantly in the period since Columbine. Whether that's due to the internet, social media, or anything else is open to debate.

Labour find it really difficult to remove their leaders. Corbyn was astonishingly useless (at least for those who had understandably not paid any attention to his career) and lost an election and they still couldn't get rid of him. Starmer is a sitting PM and he's not going anywhere unless he chooses to do so.

His judgement is shite. This is not news. Everyone knew this when they chose him. But he is PM and will not want to stand down on any terms other than his own.

His judgement is poor and his news management is poor. Adds up to shite, but I don't mind the latter element.

I’m sorry, but Starmer’s political judgment is way beyond “poor”. Sunak was “poor”. Starmer is in a different league

There are so many examples but let’s focus on Lord Yum Yum. He didn’t have to do any of this. He didn’t have to appoint him. He didn’t have to rush out and express confidence in him as the scandal kicked off. He didn’t have to do that AGAIN in the commons even as everyone else in the universe knew Mandy was toast

All unforced. All howlingly stupid. He is so bad at politics people semi-seriously wonder if he is a spy paid by China

He is the worst “politician” we’ve seen in number 10 in my lifetime. He has no political sense. Zero

He’s a dull witted public sector lawyer and that’s where he should have stayed

I can't disagree with you on any point. What it adds up to though is a PM as good as many in recent years. Nobody can be worse than Truss - I think we all agree on that. I have a personal hate of Gordon Brown. I liked Cameron, Boris is sort of an exception, and I'd feel poorly of myself if I went after Mrs May. So it boils down to Sunak vs Starmer. Now I'm a lifelong Tory, but I have to tell you that I think Starmer has been the better PM.

Why exactly? Rishi comes in and gets inflation under control. he does not give the unions massive pay rises we can not afford. he does not give away the chagos islands and cost us 30 billion in the process. he restores a level of market confidence after the trusterfuck. He also does some stupid stuff to be sure, but the only good thing I can honestly think Starmer has done well is suck up to Trump. Freebies, WFA, union pay rises, poor appointments, fails to cut welfare, why is he better? genuinely interested in how you see it.

If you read the media that explains Chagos at 30 billion, some even go at 100 billion, and cover each government action with similar hyperbole, then sure, on those "facts" Starmer is worse than Rishi, but the fact base is pretty "alternative".

If you prefer Chagos at 3 billion that's fine by me. I am asking why Starmer is better than Rishi to some people, what are the big plusses for starmer, or big minus for Rishi? Rwanda? his attempted election give away?

Seriousness. Most of the problems Starmer et al are facing are down to unserious nature of the last few Tory governments, particularly from Boris onwards. Labour aren't very good and Sunak was an improvement on Johnson and Truss but Starmer is still ahead imo.

Rwanda is a good example, not because I am overly offended by the civil rights implications, I am a bit, but far more offended by the contempt he held the nation in. He made the asylum problem worse for both claimants and locals for political gain, and was too stupid and naive to realise that the beneficiaries of that politics would be Refukkers not the Tories.

Thank you, very interesting. I find them very similar TBH. Capable people in a way but terrible politicians. Still better then a capable politician who is not able or interested in doing the job like Boris mind.

Thing is, Sunak had the opportunity to be the one to break the logjam.

Deep down, we all know that there's a mismatch between the things we want the state to provide and the amount we are happy to pay for them. We know there is a deep hypocricy in our approach to immigration. It's been going on for most of my lifetime, and it's there because we, as voters, vote for it.

Sunak could have thought "sod it, I'm going to lose, but I'm going to hand over a good legacy" by adressing those mismatches. He might have struggled to get it past his MPs, but seriously... who else were they going to put in place? And Truss had set herself up to be the fall gal. Instead, he decided to go deeper into the madness- partly with Rwanda, partly with his "we can cut tax rates because of spending cuts I'm not going to describe".

The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one, as the saying goes. Sunak and Hunt could have been brave, everything was set up for them to be brave, in the way that Major and Clarke were in the runup to 1997. But their actions were those of cowards. And it didn't really save any seats.

Starmer is not good- though I wonder if he is a good as the system lets anyone be, as good as our society deserves. He's certainly better than Sunak.

It is starting to feel, bizarrely, like the Labour Party is starting to move itself into a post-Starmer place.

I say bizarrely not because I think Starmer is doing a good job (he isn’t) but that the very idea that they are starting to talk about the leadership 15 months in from a landslide (if lopsided) election victory is just indicative of how badly Starmer has played his hand during the opening months of his premiership.

As much as I think Starmer has been very poor, I have a growing sense of unease that the Labour Party are about to do something very stupid. Something that won’t help them one jot, but will likely hole them below the waterline. Liz Truss all over again.