Best Of

Second. No third. Unlike Arsenal, and way ahead of Glastonbury's position in cultural importance this month which trails way behind the death of Alfred Brendel.

That’s sad, i missed that news. His son was a friend of mine at school. Also a very talented musician.

The BBC more or less lost Brendel's death in a cornucopia of trivia about attention seeking pop idols of the moment and a self indulgent middle class 'only one opinion at a time is allowed' bonfire of the vanities borefest in Somerset.

Prediction: In 100 years time he will still a 'go to' performer showing people what Beethoven and Schubert piano music is about. Beethoven will then be 350 years old and still going strong. Kneecap and their fellow travellers won't even be a footnote.

I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.

But it’s clear the pressures of what is an almost intolerably difficult job are already bearing down upon him. In an interview with The Observer he reveals his anger at criticism of his wife’s gifts from Lord Alli, the impact of the death of his brother in December and the firebomb attacks on his North London home. ‘I was really, really worried… Vic [his wife] was really shaken up as, in truth, was I.’

These attacks and bereavement would test any normal person. But being leader of a major Western democracy is not a normal job. Margaret Thatcher addressed her conference hours after the Brighton bombing. Barack Obama delivered his final speech before being elected President shedding tears over the passing of his mother. Donald Trump shook his fist defiantly at the gunman who had just bloodied him.

Keir Starmer, for all his qualities, is not a leader. His political opponents sense it. His own ministers and MPs realise it. And I suspect deep down, he is starting to recognise it himself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-14856729/DAN-HODGES-Keir-Starmers-time-Prime-Minister-over.html

Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.

Just listen to the man himself. Last month he delivered his Island of Strangers speech on immigration. ‘People who like politics will try to make this all about politics,’ Starmer claimed, ‘about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.’

But on Friday he dropped the pretence. He hadn’t actually read the speech properly. He now disavowed the Island of Strangers line – ‘I deeply regret using it.’ Most significantly, he then wanted to distance himself from his claim that immigration had done ‘incalculable damage’ to the country. ‘This wasn’t the way to do this in the current environment,’ he said.

In other words, he didn’t think it was right, fair or believe it at all. So if Keir Starmer doesn’t actually believe what Keir Starmer’s saying, why should anyone else?

Well, quite.

I don't think Sir Kier or his fans on here realise quite how damaging this admission is. He has effectively admitted that he stood up, and with the appearance of earnest sincerity, gave voice to sentiments he was not only not really on board with, but found repugnant. There can no longer be any trust in anything he says, ever.

What is more, his current confession doesn't seem to be any more an accurate reflection of his true feelings than the strangers speech. When he made that speech he was hoping to retain the red wall - now he's hoping to create a leftie coalition to save his party. What comes out of his mouth at any one time is based purely on expediency.

Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him

There's nothing there. He is utterly hollow. Airfix kit PM

That’s disgraceful. I have many fond memories of Airfix. They produced solid, well made kits. On one occasion, when a piece got broken, on writing a letter to them, they sent the replacement free of charge.

Oh for a PM of that quality.

Delighted at the mischief in Cyclefree´s excellent header.

Actually it does have a serious question at its heart: what are the characteristics that we should seek in our leaders?

For my part, the point about Blair, Thatcher and Atlee was that they had a fundamental vision about what they wanted to achieve and were able to build a political coalition to achieve a good part of it.

Although in many ways Britain has a fantastic standard of living compared to all but a handful of states around the world, we are also haunted by the past- the sense that we have declined and failed as a nation, even when in large part this decline is both relative and also quite possibly even reversable, if we make the right choices.

The UK media- feral, irresponsible and shallow- is a terrible mirror to try and judge the success of anything, still less the complications of national power. So no doubt the business of government is more difficult and more complicated than it was, say, a generation or two ago.

I have had the privilege of spending time working with leaders of countries that have within the past 35 years established new democracies and I am often struck by the way in which the big questions asked in Estonia, Croatia or Poland give answers that are relevant to the UK.

Public administration has been modernised in Central Europe, but not yet in Britain. Legal systems and business law, especially taxation, have been rebuilt from the ground up, whereas the UK has the longest tax code in the world, 27,000 pages and counting- impossible for any single person to understand, let alone change. Local government has been redesigned to allow power to come from the regions to the centre, whereas the UK has become ever more centralised and even historic government units, like the thousand year old counties, have been redrawn willy-nilly with little to no reference to local wishes or needs.

These are all large areas of policy and no single individual can be master of them all. Unlike Presidential systems we elect a party of government. Despite the US-style focus on the Leader, the truth is, surely, that we should be looking for a block of competence and skills. Alas the current electoral system does not permit the voters that much choice, and little or no collaboration, so for me it is electoral reform that must start the process of national renewal.

And Central Europe got there first too...

On reading the header, my first thought was rather than lawyers, we should look at sons and daughters of the manse, but other than May, Thatcher and Brown, I could not find any.

One advantage lawyers do have as MPs is understanding the legalese in which bills are written. The drawback might be they are too keen to ban things of which they disapprove; to legislate rather than persuade.

Over-legislation has been one of the things that has gotten us into such a mess, in that the state bureaucracy (and business) always has to adapt and find new ways of coping with the myriad additions to the statute book.

Politicians in general, but legally trained politicians in particular, are prone to the delusion that attitudes and behaviour can be changed by legislating on it. This, of course, very rarely works so they double down, legislating on it again and again until even lawyers struggle to work out what the law actually is.

Legislation, like speeches, is no substitute for policies, resources and a determination to persuade and change underlying attitudes. It is a poor way to show how much they "care".

I think the King's "dear oh dear" comment summed up Liz Truss' brief premiership succinctly.

HMQ on Boris's resignation – at least I won't have that idiot organising my funeral.

Doesn't everyone arrange there own funeral I know I have

I might change my mind on this in twenty years time, but personally I think funerals are for the living, so I'd only do something if it was a "make life easier for whoever it is that has to deal with it" action.

I'd quite like "funeral pyre on a windswept hillside" but since some Hindus injudiciously brought a court case trying to force their council to provide one, it has been ruled illegal.

You can get an open air pyre if you know the right people I have one booked with a hog roast for people to munch while I burn

Hope they make it clear which pyre is which.

Piers Moron is on the case...

In Britain, we now jail the likes of Lucy Connolly for dumb, incendiary social media posts (that she deleted), but 1000s chant about killing people at a major music festival, live on our publicly funded broadcaster, and nobody seems to care. Outrageous double standard.

https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1939037803406598577

If you support one side in a war then you ipso facto support the death of enemy soldiers. I for one would like more Russian soldiers to die and do not see why I should not be able to express that opinion in public.

"Death to the IDF" to me falls under freedom of speech.

In any case, have we forgotten that pop singers are supposed to be provocative?

So the people at Glastonbury support Hamas?

Good to know.

Maybe they just don't support the way in which the IDF is waging the war.

Hamas is the only game in town, how else are Gazans supposed to defend themselves?

If you'd been paying attention you'd know that Hamas started the war and took a load of hostages.

Indeed they did. But when opposing an unjustified attack you are not supposed to commit war crimes yourself. The actions of Hamas on 6 Oct are not justifications for the excessive actions of the IDF today.