Best Of

‪Sam Freedman‬
‪@samfr.bsky.social‬
· 14m
Unfortunately the Tories not completely collapsing in quite important to avoiding a Reform government.

And a wave of high profile defections is how they collapse.

https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3lyultlts3q2g

I demur.
That scenario is how we get another Tory government. Under the name Reform.

I am making this point with increasing venom. The fukers are Turquoise Tories. People voting refuk to change the mess the Tories left will be in for a shock when they find Jacob Rees-Mogg is Shadow Chancellor...

The coalition that got Boris a big majority. I don’t think it ever dispersed to other parties, more that a chunk of it stayed at home last year. Now they are back and choosing Reform. Many people probably think that Boris’ govt might have been ok were it not for the pandemic, and Farage 2028/9 would be another go at it

I am a Royalist now.


*** How did Keir Starmer win over Trump? And what’s he given up in return? ***

I spent the summer talking to 20+ people trying to work this out for a long read

David Lammy, Peter Mandelson, Simon Case, Chris Ruddy, No10 folks all talked

Among what emerged…

:: Starmer’s decision to reach out to Trump after the assassination attempt was key. Led to their first conversation

:: Their first meeting in Trump Tower saw then candidate Trump constantly ask the PM about his victory and the Red Wall - a sign he respects winners

:: When Starmer and Trump talk on the phone it is the President doing 90% of the talking, per those who have listened

:: Starmer prepares a lot for his meetings with Trump. Before the first White House trip he was sent video footage of the 3 leaders who’d faced Trump already

:: Starmer practiced handing over the state visit letter with aides. Seats arranged like the Oval Office. They war-gamed qus (inc Vance free speech jibe)

:: Starmer’s TV state visit moment almost never came off. White House tried to take the letter off him for security reasons. A standoff ensued. Eventually defused.

:: The PM has learned to schmooze Trump. On phone calls he praised Doge when Musk was still in White House

:: He travelled to both of Trump’s Scottish golf courses in July - a PM putting focus on a counterpart’s commercial interests

:: Starmer privately briefed Trump on Palestine Action spray painting his golf course with info from Police Scotland, per a source. 4 months later group banned.

:: Starmer’s No10 aides past and present believe his lack of ego - contrasts drawn with Emmanual Macron - eases relations

:: For some Labour MPs the deference is too much. One says the ‘sucking up’ to Trump ‘makes a mockery’ of UK values

:: Royalty is key. Prince William’s meeting with Trump in Paris in December lasted so long it delayed a French state banquet - to the fury of Macron.

:: Each meeting a senior Royal has with Trump is captured in a formal note by a private secretary and passed to the PM

:: There is a depth of family friendship there too. Trump unexpectedly called Starmer on mobile after his bother died

:: They are in touch on Signal too

:: Key other figures in the relationship: Lammy (now moved), Mandelson (now sacked), and Jonathan Powell

:: Plus, the secret Trump whisperer… Senay Bulbul, the UK embassy political counsellor who covers Repubs. She was almost moved to No10 to help advise

So yes, PM had got on Trump’s good side. The bigger qu: has it helped that much??


https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1967574090761347570

The implication there that hundreds of British citizens have been arrested for peaceful protest at the behest of Trump. If that's the secret reason for the draconian response to PA protestors that Ministers keep alluding to then the government is in serious trouble with the left - which was always a bigger risk to Starmer than the histrionics from the right.

I think that's unlikely. I think we have a nexus of a stupid act by the government, some stupid (but well meaning) protesters and a stupid police force. Add it together and you end up with with some very unusual 'terrorists' being arrested for holding up placards.

But I don't think its to satisfy Trump.

One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’.
If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties.
Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.

Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...

I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.

Where do you get the impression he has any interest in the arts? It seems to be just politics and personal grift with him.

I always assumed that he would enjoy musical theatre

Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament

LOL. This is getting ridiculous.

Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.

So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.

Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).

I can see all of that. But when it comes to the problems facing the country.... jesus.

I'm no fan of Starmer; and I'm certainly no fan of Mandelson. But the blows have landed, and the damage done.

I struggle to understand how anyone can summon up the bloodlust to kill anything at all.

I can manage a midge, a mosquito or an attached tick. Not much else. Flies or wasps just get shepherded to a door.

Maggots. Easy. Eat them

Eating them alive is not recommended. I hope they were dead.

I do eat meat, so I guess I'm OK with someone else killing things.

Yes, that's hypocritical. I'm probably not alone in this.

Our local Buddhist teacher is not vegetarian either, but then how could you be in Tibet?

There's no requirement to be a vegetarian Buddhist.
Killing is inevitable. We take antibiotics. Just don't seek it out or enjoy it.

I am a vegetarian atheist. Please don't cancel me

You can't be an atheist. You are God Of All Trains

JD Vance might have a point about the suppression of free-speech in Europe after all. Bob Vylan has been banned for making an off-colour remark.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/sep/15/bob-vylan-gig-in-netherlands-cancelled-after-frontman-makes-comments-about-death-of-charlie-kirk

Play silly games, win silly prizes.

You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.

Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.

'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.

Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.

The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.

Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.

JD Vance might have a point about the suppression of free-speech in Europe after all. Bob Vylan has been banned for making an off-colour remark.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/sep/15/bob-vylan-gig-in-netherlands-cancelled-after-frontman-makes-comments-about-death-of-charlie-kirk

Play silly games, win silly prizes.

You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.

Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.

'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.

Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.

The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.

Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.

Why?

Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.

Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about

And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.

And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.

This may be heresy, but Private Eye were not always in the right. See MMR for an example.

So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?

"Take back London for pedestrians
How to tackle the capital’s problem cyclists
Sebastian Milbank"

https://thecritic.co.uk/take-back-london-for-pedestrians/

Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.

Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.

There are undoubtedly some twattish London cyclists and I'd still put the number who go through red lights at around 40-60%.

One doesn't (as a London cyclist) come into contact with e-bikes so much as they are mainly deliveroo riders who simply don't stop at anything, whether red lights or little old ladies in their paths. Oh and phone snatchers, obvs. They (e-bikes) only make up a tiny percentage of bikes on the road.

There remains, however, nothing more twattish than someone on an e-scooter. Not their fault, just looks absurd. Plus the odd dolt on a powered unicycle or whatever they call it with an F1 helmet on. Twats also.

But yes, generally there is a great cycling network in London and it is well used by cyclists.