Best Of

A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right

It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine

The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/16/basic-decency-british-people-hope-not-hate-nick-lowles-how-to-defeat-far-right

Is that so ?
It acknowledges it, but does it condone ?
.. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..

Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots

It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring

Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.

Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?

In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.

When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...

The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.

They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...

All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?

The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.

As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.

It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.

Is speaking without notes a thing still?

I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.

It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).

I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!

As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.

I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.

Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this

'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'

Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.

Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.

The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.

Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.

We had a biology teacher who was even worse.
He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim.
Only O Level I failed.

One of my lecturers at Imperial used to read EVERYTHING out verbatim:

"NMR Spectroscopy underlined new paragraph"

FTP...

Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson

I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?

Silly comment

He should be removed from Labour and the Lords

For what?
Writing yum yum in a birthday card?

This is hysteria.

Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson

By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.

What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country

An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.

I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.

Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend

In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.

Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.

There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult

Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now

Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).

This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.

As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.

This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.

Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.

I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.

Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.

Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.

And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.

Partygate was critically important because if we have another national emergency we need people to trust the establishment when asked to make significant personal sacrifices - from going to war or abandoning homes ahead of a flood, or rationing food.

The COVID rules may have been silly*, but that was in the main an honest misjudgment. That will happen again if the big flood doesn't actually materialise, or a harvest does eventually come in. But we expect our leaders to make those decisions to the best of their ability and to abide by they own instructions.

*no indoor mixing was one of the more sensible ones IMO, particularly at the time the parties

Of course one of the silliest things was that you could work in the office all day but as soon as work stopped you could no longer mix. Which was mad. If you weren't infected between 9 and 5, 5-6 probably wasn't going to do it.

I know I am probably in a minority of one, but I genuinely think Johnson tried his best. He was not at the hedonistic parties that have come to represent partygate to the public, but I suspect a lot of people think he was.

He wasn't, but we've recently discovered that there were a bunch of additional social engagements Johnson held in breach of the rules.

Have we? Not seen that.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/boris-johnson-had-dinner-in-lockdown-with-peer-funding-flat-refit-files-suggest

Thin gruel - the baby shower in particular. And doesn't really change what anyone thinks of Johnson.

You don't think Johnson repeatedly breaking his own govt's rules matters, so of course you think it's thin gruel! It certainly doesn't seem like "Johnson tried his best" (your earlier claim) to me.

No, it doesn't change what anyone thinks of Johnson now. Imagine if all this had come out at the time, however! People thought the Sue Gray report was it, but there was all this other stuff going on.

I know one pollster and this has been backed up by others buy when you listen to the focus groups about why the don’t trust politicians there’s two events most of them cite, one is Tony Blair lying about the Iraq war and the second is Boris Johnson breaking his own lockdown rules whilst keeping most of the country under lockdown.

So many people missed the death of loved ones/the funerals of them due to those lockdown regulations, my father’s ex colleagues weren’t even allowed to have Christmas lunch together at the hospital for those reasons.

People don’t forget that.

Didn't Johnson assert that people like nurses and doctors had had leaving parties during lockdown? Something like that, anyway.

There are some people who believe everyone behaves as they do. There used to be a technical manager here who would never agree to flexible working for the technical team. He would let them varying start and end times, but it must be the same every day. No long day one day and then a shorter one the next. Yet he was always to be seem leaving early etc. Now he may have been going home to work, but subsequent information emerged that suggested he wasn't. So I am of the opinion that he wouldn't allow others flexibility because he himself would abuse the system and assumed everyone else would too.

I suspect Johnson thought that most people would do a bit of blurring the lines, as he did, and would be shocked that most people took it so seriously.

We all live in our bubbles.

Is speaking without notes a thing still?

I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.

It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).

I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!

As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.

I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.

Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this

'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'

Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.

Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.

The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.

Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.

We had a biology teacher who was even worse.
He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim.
Only O Level I failed.

A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right

It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine

The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/16/basic-decency-british-people-hope-not-hate-nick-lowles-how-to-defeat-far-right

Is that so ?
It acknowledges it, but does it condone ?
.. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..

Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots

It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring

Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.

Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?

In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.

When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...

The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.

They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...

All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?

The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.

As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.

The far right "barely exist"? Who are the people supporting Tommy Robinson?

Is speaking without notes a thing still?

I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.

It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).

I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!

As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.

I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.

Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this

'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'

"Fornication, we can all enjoy... sorry, I'll read that again... for an occasion we can all enjoy..."