Best Of

Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.

"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."

As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.

Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times

As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

1. Thatcher
2. Blair
3. Major
4. Cameron
5. Brown
6. May
7. Starmer (new entry)
8. Sunak
9. Johnson
10. Truss

I'd have Sunak above Starmer, and I think May was woeful:

1. Thatcher
2. Blair
3. Major
4. Cameron
5. Brown
6. Sunak
7. Starmer (new entry)
8. May
9. Johnson
10. Truss

Given that a lot of the tax and money issues that Starmer has were created by Rishi as a trap I would rate Rishi below May so for me that would be

1. Thatcher
2. Blair
3. Major
4. Cameron
5. Brown
6. May
7. Sunak
8. Starmer (new entry)
9. Johnson
10. Truss

The problem with all this numbering is that it suggests that there's the same between each of the entrants.

It should be more like:

1. Thatcher
2. Blair
5. Major
10. Cameron
5,000. Brown
6,000,000. May
6,000,001. Sunak
8,000,000,000,000. Starmer (new entry)
9,000,000,000,005. Johnson
10e234. Truss

Jon Rentoul on SKS’s poor judgement

It was unwise of PM to say he “deeply regrets” the “island of strangers” phrase – & even more so to admit that he doesn’t always read his speeches before delivering them

https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1939239317957714325?s=61

I suspect it will be. ‘Taxi for Starmer’ sooner rather than later.

They made me say things. Wicked things, terrible things. Me, a poor dupe of a toolmakers son, forced to speak their rotten, evil words with not a moment to question them. Oh, nobody knows the troubles i've seen, poor Keir, alone and misunderstood in this cruel world.

Not unlike his kneeling for BLM, then regretting it, then regretting regretting it. The man is a chump.

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".