But as you’ve been told RCP isn’t updating as well as it used to and misses out some key polls such as the one with Harris 5% ahead.
HYUFD posting dodgy data that backs his viewpoint - who would have thought he would stoop to such low levels.
Give him time to emulate his little bit of fun with Scottish stuff. He actually claimed a reputable BPC pollster was bent for producing data he didn't like and couldn't bluff his way around (eg with DKs), and got a spellin the cooler.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
That's the problem with "Verify" groups.
Any details on this? And any mea culpa from the Beeb?
They posted an article about talking about a group of the knuckle draggers attacking a car based upon the car being driven by people of Asian heritage. These stories was going around and around on social media. Problem is the police said it wasn't, the people in thr car were white Eastern Europeans.
They quietly amended the article. Given the situation at the moment and as we saw yesterday a mob of Asians based upon fake news kicked off its not great your fact checkers unable yo fact check (again).
The real problem with BBC verify is they are trying to be a bit like Bellingcat and are obsessed with social media, but Bellingcat are shall we say a "specialist" organisation, who clearly get info from means not available to journalists.
One other story before I go back to work: it seems that Trump's former lawyer Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal and cooperating with the prosecution in the Arizona fake electors case. If Trump loses in November... he's going to be in a world of hurt.
Would President Trump pardon Meadows or let justice take it's course?
One other story before I go back to work: it seems that Trump's former lawyer Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal and cooperating with the prosecution in the Arizona fake electors case. If Trump loses in November... he's going to be in a world of hurt.
Would President Trump pardon Meadows or let justice take it's course?
Isn’t it a state charge? So Trump cannot pardon him.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
When looking at Labour's 2024 voting bloc, Starmer faces three potential threats:
1. In inner-city, heavily ethnic majority seats, there is now a very decent chance that independent, generally Muslim candidates have reached a sufficient scale and / or organisation level where they can start taking seats off Labour - not through a clown such as Galloway but through candidates of their own community. Look at many of the inner-city seats and you see some very heavy swings against Labour.
2. Linked with 1, there is now a major threat from the Greens who pose an alternative, credible party for Labour's professional, graduate based vote in urban, gentrified areas;
3. There are also the traditional Labour WWC who had been gradually drifting to the Tories for decades, then gave their vote back (or sat it out) in 2024 because of Sunak's out of touch behaviour. Reform is the threat here obvs.
Starmer and Labour have taken a view that 1 and 2 are the main threats. Add to that, a general tendency to support progressive causes and it is no surprise what the Government has done.
The problem for Starmer and Labour is that the government's actions feeds into what was already a strongly held perception about many WWC that voters that the Labour party and its members essentially despise them (the WWC) and their values and / or show preferential treatment towards minority groups.
This is why I think @TSE 's analogy with Cameron on the 2011 riots is wrong - nobody thought there were two separate groups of rioters being given differential treatment (and the 2011 riots more directly threatened the bien pensant in terms of areas targeted). A large group of people now do believe different rioters are being treated differently - and, back to @Cookie, the bend the knee stuff is a handy stick with which to beat him.
Low stakes conspiracy theory: Elon Musk is trying to provoke Starmer into nationalising Twitter as the only way to get back the $40 billion he paid for it.
Nationalisation without compensation could perhaps be looked at in this case. Like Nasser did with the oil.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
That's the problem with "Verify" groups.
Any details on this? And any mea culpa from the Beeb?
They posted an article about talking about a group of the knuckle draggers attacking a car based upon the car being driven by people of Asian heritage. These stories was going around and around on social media. Problem is the police said it wasn't, the people in thr car were white Eastern Europeans. It wasn't racial, it was purely criminal.
They quietly amended the article. Given the situation at the moment and as we saw yesterday a mob of Asians based upon fake news kicked off its not great your fact checkers unable yo fact check (again).
The real problem with BBC verify is they are trying to be a bit like Bellingcat and are obsessed with social media, but Bellingcat are shall we say a "specialist" organisation, who clearly get info from means not available to journalists.
Although the knuckle draggers still attacked a car containing non white English folk? Why did they attack THIS car?
Low stakes conspiracy theory: Elon Musk is trying to provoke Starmer into nationalising Twitter as the only way to get back the $40 billion he paid for it.
Except that falls down on *how* he nationalises it.
Mind you, Starmer could just rock up and say "$40 billion, cash"
This is the medals table from the Microsoft Start webpage:
Can anyone explain how the sorting works? It clearly isn't on Golds, or China would be first... but it clearly isn't on total medal count, or the UK would be ahead of Australia.
Well, you start that America is number one and.....the rest don't really matter.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
That's the problem with "Verify" groups.
Any details on this? And any mea culpa from the Beeb?
They posted an article about talking about a group of the knuckle draggers attacking a car based upon the car being driven by people of Asian heritage. These stories was going around and around on social media. Problem is the police said it wasn't, the people in thr car were white Eastern Europeans. It wasn't racial, it was purely criminal.
They quietly amended the article. Given the situation at the moment and as we saw yesterday a mob of Asians based upon fake news kicked off its not great your fact checkers unable yo fact check (again).
The real problem with BBC verify is they are trying to be a bit like Bellingcat and are obsessed with social media, but Bellingcat are shall we say a "specialist" organisation, who clearly get info from means not available to journalists.
Although the knuckle draggers still attacked a car containing non white English folk? Why did they attack THIS car?
I have amended my post. What i meant to say is it wasn't the target the Asian / Muslim / boat people element we have seen more widely.
A nice drop of rain in London this afternoon to cool everybody down - the stock market stabilising as everyone with a functioning brain cell knew it would.
As for Starmer and the "riots", the terrible events at Southport last week (and we should never forget those) triggered this paroxysm of anger. It's less about immigration than assimiliation and this notion of "wanting my country back" which has been playing out strongly on social media.
To paraphrase the title of an often very funny show, whose country is it anyway?
No, from memory, he did it in camo gear and a shotgun in a wood/swamp whilst swigging a beer from a bottle. It was a publicity stunt during the 2004 election to show America he was just a regular fella. He looked about as comfortable as you'd think.
One other story before I go back to work: it seems that Trump's former lawyer Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal and cooperating with the prosecution in the Arizona fake electors case. If Trump loses in November... he's going to be in a world of hurt.
Would President Trump pardon Meadows or let justice take it's course?
Isn’t it a state charge? So Trump cannot pardon him.
Also he's not President. That's likely to present an insurmountable hurdle, even after November.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
I'm sure the intent of the team is well meaning but I worry the modern need for instant news means even the fact checkers are under pressure to 'verify' things too quickly to get it right.
This choice shows some confidence on the part of Harris. She is more interested in the person she has the best chemistry with than who could deliver most in a key state she thinks she is going to win anyway.
I really, really hope that she is right and she does not regret not choosing Shapiro. It's a brave call.
Low stakes conspiracy theory: Elon Musk is trying to provoke Starmer into nationalising Twitter as the only way to get back the $40 billion he paid for it.
And which, never forget, he wanted to get out of paying and sued the lawyers for twitter who forced him to buy it.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
I'm sure the intent of the team is well meaning but I worry the modern need for instant news means even the fact checkers are under pressure to 'verify' things too quickly to get it right.
When it comes to things like verify from video, geolocate etc, it is a really specialist skill pioneered by Bellingcat, but nobody believes they don't also have access to means that a) are publicly available and b) being provided to them aa they are a useful conduit.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Actually I think you have missed a greater risk from the riots, if Farage or the tabloids run with it. The riots themselves will blow out soon. What might stick around is the perception of Starmer jailing rioters while letting out rapists and murderers (which also fits the two tier Keir nickname you have raised).
Someone released early and re-offending in a big way is inevitable. Leading rioters down the steps to the cells probably helps ameliorate this somewhat. Letting bad guys out early was always going to be a lose-lose.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Dave had similar levels during the 2011 riots but his ratings improved as time went by as more and more thugs got locked up.
Only 30% say Cameron has done a good job, against 44% who say the opposite, a net negative score of -14. For Johnson, the figures are 28% good job and 38% bad, a negative of -10 points. By contrast, 45% think that the acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Tim Godwin, has done well against 27% who say the opposite – a positive score of 18.
Another online poll, conducted this week by YouGov, found similar levels of support for the police response over that of politicians
Interesting. I’d say the difference here is the “two tier” accusation, which makes this a potentially more dangerous political moment
The initial reaction to the 2011 riots was spectacularly feeble, I certainly remember that
Oh yeah, cos Tier rhymes with Kier. It's devastating. Not sure how he can come back from it.
Was it Lee Anderson who came up with it? Damn the man!
The Right are putting it about that the reason Sir Keir took the knee during the BLM protests was because he regarded the rioters are revolutionary heroes and their use of violence to bring about a Marxist overthrow of the White Christian hegemony was entirely justified. Absurd, of course, but the big question is: can social media make enough people believe it? The major players on the Right are going for it hammer and tongs.
This choice shows some confidence on the part of Harris. She is more interested in the person she has the best chemistry with than who could deliver most in a key state she thinks she is going to win anyway.
I really, really hope that she is right and she does not regret not choosing Shapiro. It's a brave call.
Her not winning because she isn't Trump would never be a great victory. Her winning because she is really very inspirational and sees the future as something she can influence - that's going to be her victory. (No idea if it'll happen, but that surely must be her thinking)
JOE MANCHIN praises pick of Walz for veep: "My friend Governor Tim Walz will bring normality back to the most chaotic political environment that most of us have ever seen." https://x.com/AnthonyAdragna/status/1820840781701108056
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
I'm sure the intent of the team is well meaning but I worry the modern need for instant news means even the fact checkers are under pressure to 'verify' things too quickly to get it right.
There is also the suspicion about bias in the verification team. It might just be which stories they choose to verify, or the sources that they prefer, but if you already don't trust the BBC (head full of conspiracy theories) you ain't going to trust them to verify themselves...
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
One other story before I go back to work: it seems that Trump's former lawyer Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal and cooperating with the prosecution in the Arizona fake electors case. If Trump loses in November... he's going to be in a world of hurt.
Would President Trump pardon Meadows or let justice take it's course?
Isn’t it a state charge? So Trump cannot pardon him.
Of course. It's not a Federal issue, so that's a spot of bad news for Meadows.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
The "Two Tier" drivel is essentially a plea for leniency for violent white racists. You have to question the motives of those who are in love with it as a slogan.
This is the medals table from the Microsoft Start webpage:
Can anyone explain how the sorting works? It clearly isn't on Golds, or China would be first... but it clearly isn't on total medal count, or the UK would be ahead of Australia.
Since i was a nipper, i always gave Gold 5 points Silver2 Bronze 1 and used to keep a table.
One other story before I go back to work: it seems that Trump's former lawyer Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal and cooperating with the prosecution in the Arizona fake electors case. If Trump loses in November... he's going to be in a world of hurt.
Would President Trump pardon Meadows or let justice take it's course?
Isn’t it a state charge? So Trump cannot pardon him.
Also he's not President. That's likely to present an insurmountable hurdle, even after November.
He could well be on January 20th. But Meadows is toast.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
I'm sure the intent of the team is well meaning but I worry the modern need for instant news means even the fact checkers are under pressure to 'verify' things too quickly to get it right.
There is also the suspicion about bias in the verification team. It might just be which stories they choose to verify, or the sources that they prefer, but if you already don't trust the BBC (head full of conspiracy theories) you ain't going to trust them to verify themselves...
See GE coverage, they made a headline news piece about something that they failed to find news about e.g. Reform big cheerleaders online were actually humans, instead they led with we found a bot we found a bot (don't mention it has 150 followers) and all the other ones who are getting traction are well real people.
They also ran one about the fake news account spreading Trump fake AI photos, but forgot to mention the account says its a parody account.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
Most of them are far richer than most people in this world.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
This choice shows some confidence on the part of Harris. She is more interested in the person she has the best chemistry with than who could deliver most in a key state she thinks she is going to win anyway.
I really, really hope that she is right and she does not regret not choosing Shapiro. It's a brave call.
Her not winning because she isn't Trump would never be a great victory. Her winning because she is really very inspirational and sees the future as something she can influence - that's going to be her victory. (No idea if it'll happen, but that surely must be her thinking)
Feck that. Win. The alternative is seriously sub-optimal. Leave all the high falluting stuff for the know it alls who claim victory was inevitable after the event.
I see BBC Verify fell for twitter fake news. Who will check the fact checkers.
I'm sure the intent of the team is well meaning but I worry the modern need for instant news means even the fact checkers are under pressure to 'verify' things too quickly to get it right.
There is also the suspicion about bias in the verification team. It might just be which stories they choose to verify, or the sources that they prefer, but if you already don't trust the BBC (head full of conspiracy theories) you ain't going to trust them to verify themselves...
See GE coverage, they made a headline news piece about something that they failed to find news about e.g. Reform big cheerleaders online were actually humans, instead they led with we found a bot we found a bot (don't mention it has 150 followers) and all the other ones who are getting traction are well real people.
I think its a bit like David Aaronovitch - he doesn't think any conspiracies really exist (in the sense of the classical conspiracy theory). That's probably ok in the sense of the Royal Family being Alien Lizards, or Bill Gates using the Covid vaccines to microchip us all, or indeed the magnificent nonsense of 'chem-trails', but conspiracies DO happen.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
I think its more complicated. Football hooligans have famously been made up of a surprising number of people who aren't working class, its a weird hobby for them to get involved in a punch up at weekends.
Tommy Robinson was / is a millionaire. A company director is one individual who has gone to court today.
What we have seen is far right turning up, but so are pretty young kids who are there for the chaos and crime. Chaos and destruction and lawlessness attracts all sorts of people
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
The ones crying that being remanded in custody will make them miss their holiday don’t seem very poor.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
Most of them are far richer than most people in this world.
What the fuck is that supposed to add? By UK standards the rioters are almost certainly 'poor and white'. The kind of folk who feel that the governments of all hues have abandoned them in favour of migrants, who see themselves at the bottom of every queue (council housing etc). Doesn't mean they are right, or that by comparison with someone from the Global South they are wealthy, if they think their life is shit.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
I think its more complicated. Football hooligans have famously been made up of a surprising number of people who aren't working class, its a weird hobby for them to get involved in a punch up at weekends.
Tommy Robinson was / is a millionaire. A company director is one individual who has gone to court today.
What we have seen is far right turning up, but so are pretty young kids who are there for the chaos and crime. Chaos and destruction and lawlessness attracts all sorts of people
Yes, I used to know a university lecturer who ran with a pretty rough football crowd - definitely hooligan adjacent, if not an actual hooligan. Like anything it is a simple picture, but I suspect an awful lot are very working class, white rioters, not company directors.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
The ones crying that being remanded in custody will make them miss their holiday don’t seem very poor.
Poor folk usually manage to have holidays. Remember its relative poverty, not absolute.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Back in 1976, when Jimmy Carter selected a Minnesotan for VP, namely then US Sen. Walter "Fritz" Mondale, the electoral impact in the great Gopher State was NOT decisive, seeing as how Carter-Mondale won MN by a landslide.
HOWEVER, the election was WAY closer in neighboring Wisconsin, which the Democratic duo of "Grits & Fritz" carried by just 35k out of over 2m cast.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
I think its more complicated. Football hooligans have famously been made up of a surprising number of people who aren't working class, its a weird hobby for them to get involved in a punch up at weekends.
Tommy Robinson was / is a millionaire. A company director is one individual who has gone to court today.
What we have seen is far right turning up, but so are pretty young kids who are there for the chaos and crime. Chaos and destruction and lawlessness attracts all sorts of people
Yes, I used to know a university lecturer who ran with a pretty rough football crowd - definitely hooligan adjacent, if not an actual hooligan. Like anything it is a simple picture, but I suspect an awful lot are very working class, white rioters, not company directors.
Yes. I think a more interesting question is who are the ones organising. Once a mob forms, we know there are psychological principles that people feel emboldened to do things they would never otherwise do.
I’m afraid I see BBC Verify as a load of self-aggrandising, self-satisfied nonsense.
Concentrate on reporting the facts and let people make up their own minds. You don’t need a separate unit to bestow its seal of approval on what constitutes “truth.”
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Clearly he sympathised with their grievance, to the extent of 'taking the knee'. I'm not sure quite was BLM was protesting in the UK at the time...
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
But that’s also true of Kamala Harris as well. They don’t seem to have a clue how to,attack her.
I'm sure they'll settle on a strategy soon but it's proving harder than they thought. Some attacks just don't land as plausible, like how the Tories periodically decide to attack Sadiq Khan as some kind of extremist rather than stick to his record. Some of the Harris attacks similarly don't ring true.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
He didn't defend the BLM riots. He took the knee as LOTO in solidarity with black people in America and here after the George Floyd death. Those two actions are not necessarily inconsistent. The wisdom of taking the knee is a different question.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Actually I think you have missed a greater risk from the riots, if Farage or the tabloids run with it. The riots themselves will blow out soon. What might stick around is the perception of Starmer jailing rioters while letting out rapists and murderers (which also fits the two tier Keir nickname you have raised).
Someone released early and re-offending in a big way is inevitable. Leading rioters down the steps to the cells probably helps ameliorate this somewhat. Letting bad guys out early was always going to be a lose-lose.
Another two tier Keir trap is scattering refugees around the country if it gives the impression of preferential housing over locals. The same thing happened back in the day when council houses were allocated according to housing need which (obviously) favoured large immigrant families over local 20-year-olds.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So we are now blocking all VPNs, worldwide, who won't tell the British government where the traffic is going?
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
VPN's are merely a conduit and most don't give a shit where you are heading after, vpn chains are also easy vpn from here to a vpn abroad preferably one unlikely to cooperate and how is the uk plod likely to find out anything. Yes vpn's absolutely don't care what you are upto for the most part.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
You are starting to sound like other prominent PBers doubling down on their hobby-horses. It's not going to happen.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
Not that I think they would be, but someone might make the argument that there are institutional or societal biases that make it the case in practice even though not official. Indirect or even unintentional discrimination and what not.
I don't believe that would be the case in that scenario, but I can see it being argued.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
"Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure"
It is my understand that King Charles' Long Stay Homes Away From Home are undergoing a bit of housing crisis as well.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Clearly he sympathised with their grievance, to the extent of 'taking the knee'. I'm not sure quite was BLM was protesting in the UK at the time...
Keir was sympathetic to peaceful protests, but not for violence. For example:
"Any violence against our police is completely unacceptable. No ifs, no buts.
Today’s protests in London were led by those intent on causing violence and sowing hate for their own ends.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So we are now blocking all VPNs, worldwide, who won't tell the British government where the traffic is going?
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
VPNs do tell the UK government where the traffic is going, otherwise every nonce would have a VPN.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So I use a legit vpn to goto a foreign vpn. The government can do nothing apart from look like the toothless idiots they are. Bad laws are ones that cannot be enforced. This would be totally unenforceable
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Clearly he sympathised with their grievance, to the extent of 'taking the knee'. I'm not sure quite was BLM was protesting in the UK at the time...
Given the cultural cringe that sees adoption of US talking points irrespective of their relevance to the UK, and in fact distracts from tackling problems we have in that arena by meshing the two together, I'm not surprised you're unsure.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
The presumption by relatively well off people that the poor would choose to have these scum foisted on them to wreck their communities and beat up people up when actually they are minding their own business and trying to make the best of their lives.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So we are now blocking all VPNs, worldwide, who won't tell the British government where the traffic is going?
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
VPNs do tell the UK government where the traffic is going, otherwise every nonce would have a VPN.
Not every country in the world answers the telephone to the UK Government. Some are quite frosty to us.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
The ones crying that being remanded in custody will make them miss their holiday don’t seem very poor.
£66 for a return flight from London to Ibiza next week.
Foreign travel is pretty cheap compared to rent, food or heating. It isn't the 1980s any more.
On the Q from the previous thread, the infra to block twitter would be exactly the same as the infra used to block anything else, such as child abuse images.
It's been in place for 15-20 years. There was a day in ~2008 iirc where they blocked Wikipedia by mistake.
It won't be 100% - nothing ever is, but it will be 98%+, surmountable by some internet tricks and established routes used by privacy activists.
The objection to blocking Twitter is not its technical complexity or the symbolism of stricter political censorship than Russia, but kicking off a trade dispute with the incoming President of the United States.
I don't think it would be much of a trade dispute if the UK decided to block Twitter. Various countries do.
The biggest question would be - why not Telegram and all the others hosting similar (or worse) content?
The naughty people are and have been on Telegram for a long time.
Yes - notice how the scum trying to organise riots were promoting and using it?
Those that organise the riots use Telegram. Their sympathisers read the Telegraph.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Actually I think you have missed a greater risk from the riots, if Farage or the tabloids run with it. The riots themselves will blow out soon. What might stick around is the perception of Starmer jailing rioters while letting out rapists and murderers (which also fits the two tier Keir nickname you have raised).
Someone released early and re-offending in a big way is inevitable. Leading rioters down the steps to the cells probably helps ameliorate this somewhat. Letting bad guys out early was always going to be a lose-lose.
Another two tier Keir trap is scattering refugees around the country if it gives the impression of preferential housing over locals. The same thing happened back in the day when council houses were allocated according to housing need which (obviously) favoured large immigrant families over local 20-year-olds.
I agree the dispersal might be an issue. But then the narrative that Nick Ferrari used this morning of Starmer putting illegals up into "Four Star Hotels" is not a good look.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
VPN's are merely a conduit and most don't give a shit where you are heading after, vpn chains are also easy vpn from here to a vpn abroad preferably one unlikely to cooperate and how is the uk plod likely to find out anything. Yes vpn's absolutely don't care what you are upto for the most part.
You need an ISP to get access to a VPN and ISPs most certainly do give a shit about the views of the police. The ISP will politely or not so politely tell you to stop using the VPN or stop using their internet service. You think Virgin Media are going to stand up for your rights to use a VPN? If so I’ve a bridge to sell you.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
"Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure"
It is my understand that King Charles' Long Stay Homes Away From Home are undergoing a bit of housing crisis as well.
Easily fixed by emptying the cells of TV licence fee non-payers.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So we are now blocking all VPNs, worldwide, who won't tell the British government where the traffic is going?
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
No need, just make Twitter liable for content that it publishes and let the lawyers do the rest.
Here is one telling quote "Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
But VPNs do not allow you to engage in criminality and since the government gets to decide what is illegal VPNs aren’t the protection from prying eyes you think it is.
But what do you do about VPNs hosted in countries where a British government request for anything just goes in the bin?
The UK ISP informs the UK government who is using said VPNs and blocks the customer until they agree to not use the VPN.
So we are now blocking all VPNs, worldwide, who won't tell the British government where the traffic is going?
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
VPNs do tell the UK government where the traffic is going, otherwise every nonce would have a VPN.
Not every country in the world answers the telephone to the UK Government. Some are quite frosty to us.
Indeed an example is the Tor network which is basically a multi level vpn
Plenty of VPNs run no log and mixing and have been tested in court to be unable to provide the required information.
Snowdon showed that NSA etc had found an exploit into OpenVPN protocol, but was very expensive to deploy. It was much easier to use other methods where people ledt digital footprint / messed up once not having their VPN, using old school method of physical tampering with devices or try and use malware to infect a suspects devices. I believe we have had court cases in the UK where the later was used.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
Most of them are far richer than most people in this world.
What the fuck is that supposed to add? By UK standards the rioters are almost certainly 'poor and white'. The kind of folk who feel that the governments of all hues have abandoned them in favour of migrants, who see themselves at the bottom of every queue (council housing etc). Doesn't mean they are right, or that by comparison with someone from the Global South they are wealthy, if they think their life is shit.
I doubt the motive for someone meting out racist violence is that he feels abandoned by the government.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
The ones crying that being remanded in custody will make them miss their holiday don’t seem very poor.
Poor folk usually manage to have holidays. Remember its relative poverty, not absolute.
The nature of the holiday they miss would be relevant to sympathy levels.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Clearly he sympathised with their grievance, to the extent of 'taking the knee'. I'm not sure quite was BLM was protesting in the UK at the time...
I genuinely don't recall, but weren't the BLM protests largely peaceful? Apart from throwing the Coulston statue in Bristol Harbour, what other violent acts were carried out? Did they torch any buildings or hospitalise large numbers of police officers or attack other people? The current unrest seems of a different character, in as far as these are relatively small numbers of people of whom a large proportion are violent, compared to a large number of people in the BLM example of whom a small proportion are violent. To conflate the two seems a bit dishonest. What's happening now feels more like a smaller scale repeat of 2011 - ie scrotes causing trouble and looting with a thin veneer of a political cause - rather than a repeat of the BLM stuff.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
What a silly post. You're better than that 'Tubbs.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
That's essentially this Farage "two tier policing" bollocks.
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
Well yes, I agree with your third para. But SKS didn't seem anything like so angry about the BLM riots.
Clearly he sympathised with their grievance, to the extent of 'taking the knee'. I'm not sure quite was BLM was protesting in the UK at the time...
Given the cultural cringe that sees adoption of US talking points irrespective of their relevance to the UK, and in fact distracts from tackling problems we have in that arena by meshing the two together, I'm not surprised you're unsure.
Its a bit like the endless protests we have seen over Gaza on UK streets. I'm not quite sure what action they wanted to happen. I could understand the Jarrow marches. I could see what the Countryside alliance wanted. I understood what the women at Greenham Common wanted. I didn't see what the Gaza protesters wanted us to actually do.
Comments
"Poor white people", my arse! Violent bastards, some of whom are taking their children with them.
Poor any other colour people if they are violent bastards also need banging up.
If there is a two tier policing it would look more like this: If I was a teenager on Lewisham High Street and was stopped by the police, I would most likely not be white.
They quietly amended the article. Given the situation at the moment and as we saw yesterday a mob of Asians based upon fake news kicked off its not great your fact checkers unable yo fact check (again).
The real problem with BBC verify is they are trying to be a bit like Bellingcat and are obsessed with social media, but Bellingcat are shall we say a "specialist" organisation, who clearly get info from means not available to journalists.
That matters to some of you; what matters to me is that the democratic nations are, collectively, dominating the Olympics.
I like elections.
It’s such a cool word. ASSIZES
“I see your Brooklyn got five years at the Assizes”
1. In inner-city, heavily ethnic majority seats, there is now a very decent chance that independent, generally Muslim candidates have reached a sufficient scale and / or organisation level where they can start taking seats off Labour - not through a clown such as Galloway but through candidates of their own community. Look at many of the inner-city seats and you see some very heavy swings against Labour.
2. Linked with 1, there is now a major threat from the Greens who pose an alternative, credible party for Labour's professional, graduate based vote in urban, gentrified areas;
3. There are also the traditional Labour WWC who had been gradually drifting to the Tories for decades, then gave their vote back (or sat it out) in 2024 because of Sunak's out of touch behaviour. Reform is the threat here obvs.
Starmer and Labour have taken a view that 1 and 2 are the main threats. Add to that, a general tendency to support progressive causes and it is no surprise what the Government has done.
The problem for Starmer and Labour is that the government's actions feeds into what was already a strongly held perception about many WWC that voters that the Labour party and its members essentially despise them (the WWC) and their values and / or show preferential treatment towards minority groups.
This is why I think @TSE 's analogy with Cameron on the 2011 riots is wrong - nobody thought there were two separate groups of rioters being given differential treatment (and the 2011 riots more directly threatened the bien pensant in terms of areas targeted). A large group of people now do believe different rioters are being treated differently - and, back to @Cookie, the bend the knee stuff is a handy stick with which to beat him.
A nice drop of rain in London this afternoon to cool everybody down - the stock market stabilising as everyone with a functioning brain cell knew it would.
As for Starmer and the "riots", the terrible events at Southport last week (and we should never forget those) triggered this paroxysm of anger. It's less about immigration than assimiliation and this notion of "wanting my country back" which has been playing out strongly on social media.
To paraphrase the title of an often very funny show, whose country is it anyway?
No, from memory, he did it in camo gear and a shotgun in a wood/swamp whilst swigging a beer from a bottle. It was a publicity stunt during the 2004 election to show America he was just a regular fella. He looked about as comfortable as you'd think.
That's likely to present an insurmountable hurdle, even after November.
I really, really hope that she is right and she does not regret not choosing Shapiro. It's a brave call.
Kamala actually picked Tim Walz. I genuinely can’t wrap my head around Dems doing something politically solid. Baffling development.
https://x.com/GoodPoliticGuy/status/1820807033634922544
https://x.com/robisraelart/status/1820657328963846618
JOE MANCHIN praises pick of Walz for veep: "My friend Governor Tim Walz will bring normality back to the most chaotic political environment that most of us have ever seen."
https://x.com/AnthonyAdragna/status/1820840781701108056
https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/vpn-statistics/
Here is one telling quote
"Enhanced online privacy (39%): The largest percentage of British VPN users cite enhanced online privacy as their main reason for using a VPN. This reflects growing concern about online privacy and the desire to protect personal data from prying eyes, including ISPs, advertisers, and government surveillance"
https://x.com/mattwagenius/status/1820507813669396846
They also ran one about the fake news account spreading Trump fake AI photos, but forgot to mention the account says its a parody account.
I demand oysters. Or maybe andouillettes. In a brasserie. With red awnings. Velvet banquettes
Tommy Robinson was / is a millionaire. A company director is one individual who has gone to court today.
What we have seen is far right turning up, but so are pretty young kids who are there for the chaos and crime. Chaos and destruction and lawlessness attracts all sorts of people
Might have a fine Cote Rotie to go with, to further confirm my plebeian status
HOWEVER, the election was WAY closer in neighboring Wisconsin, which the Democratic duo of "Grits & Fritz" carried by just 35k out of over 2m cast.
On Wisconsin - University of Wisconsin Badger Marching Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N7SGEfaAyk
Concentrate on reporting the facts and let people make up their own minds. You don’t need a separate unit to bestow its seal of approval on what constitutes “truth.”
Here's a place that I think is fantastic, but it'll never be popular.
https://www.aupetittonneau.fr/
Just as with the 80s football hooligans, quite a few people seem to be trying to impose their own viewpoint, before the facts are known.
No nickname yet, I see. We await that with enormous trepidation.
in America and here after the George Floyd death. Those two actions are not necessarily inconsistent. The wisdom of taking the knee is a different question.
A Great British Firewall only allowing access to approved sites will be simpler, at that point.
https://landenkerr.com/le-gevaudan/
But it’s over on the left bank and I want somewhere within 5 minutes walk. I’m by l’Opera
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
A couple of interesting things in there. And one thing in common with JD Vance.
55 Things to Know About Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ Pick for VP
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/06/tim-walz-55-things-harris-vp-00172790
The incursion is currently believed to be 7km deep.
https://x.com/secretsqrl123/status/1820842571276357720
I don't believe that would be the case in that scenario, but I can see it being argued.
It is my understand that King Charles' Long Stay Homes Away From Home are undergoing a bit of housing crisis as well.
"Any violence against our police is completely unacceptable. No ifs, no buts.
Today’s protests in London were led by those intent on causing violence and sowing hate for their own ends.
We must not let them win."
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1271875790242828289?t=c7j-IVh0qcg_06A3QepWgg&s=19
Foreign travel is pretty cheap compared to rent, food or heating. It isn't the 1980s any more.
Snowdon showed that NSA etc had found an exploit into OpenVPN protocol, but was very expensive to deploy. It was much easier to use other methods where people ledt digital footprint / messed up once not having their VPN, using old school method of physical tampering with devices or try and use malware to infect a suspects devices. I believe we have had court cases in the UK where the later was used.