I do think [failure to back Canada] was a mis-step - it made Starmer look unneccessarly craven. There was also a better answer available to the question of whether we could beat Russia. BUT... that said, dealing with Trump at such a finely balanced time was a hospital pass.
It will be fascinaring to read the accounts of what was going on in the background. It seems that Trump had not as good a hand as he thought. Probably was told by Macron that the Europeans would undercut any Ukraine deal if Trump didn't treat Ukraine/Zelenskyy with more respect. Trump's position has undergone quite the volte face. Denying he would have ever have dissed Zelenskyy, renewing the sanctions against Russia for another year...it does seem that the grown-ups have been busy in the background. We'll see how today's signing goes.
But I suspect Russia is spitting teeth. Their entire strategy in Ukraine has been about survivng to the point where Trump freezes the conflict. Yesterday was terrible for Putin - 2,710 casualties, 13 tanks lost, 38 armoured personnel carriers, 92 artillery systems. Russian and North Korean troops under siege within Kursk - Russia proper - with those trying to relieve them being destroyed. Ammunition not getting to the front.
It's a shit show for Putin.
I also suspect Trump is starting to get some blowback from the impact of his policy announcements. Most of us will have seen the huge upswelling of anti-US sentiment in Canada, the boycotts of US products and travel, and also the turbulent town hall meetings some GOP politicians have been having in their patches, voters angry about Musk and his antics, people who've lost their jobs, farmers who have lost their USAID contracts, and the rest. Such political discontent will filter up and even someone with a thick a skin (and head) as Trump will have noticed by now.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
What about "Trump being the embodiment of all evil *and* he is someone we have to do business with"?
Notice that the UK did business with Stalin, Mao and some other interesting characters. Signed treaties with them..... Not because we enthused about their moral character, but because we were trying to avert worse things.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
There is the Trump being the embodiment of all evil who we can do business with option.
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
The most interesting thing about the whole episode was The Donald misunderremembering that he called Zelensky a dictator.
I have noted previously that he made an equally forthright pronouncement about Hamas having to release all, not some of the hostages the other day or else. Hamas didn't release all the hostages.
So. An interesting dynamic and use of rhetoric to achieve a political aim, or he is memoryless and impulsive (huge, if true), or he has taken the roller-coaster to goo goo ga ga land.
Yep, Sir Keir has played a blinder. The raw politics of this are just sensational. The British Right are in disarray. I see even one or two posters on here, who were hitherto lecturing us about how Trump was a force for good and that his critics had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', are now harrumphing that Sir Keir was insufficiently anti-Trump. Where do they go from here? Even their great cause of Chagos has now been neutralized.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
The most interesting thing about the whole episode was The Donald misunderremembering that he called Zelensky a dictator.
I have noted previously that he made an equally forthright pronouncement about Hamas having to release all, not some of the hostages the other day or else. Hamas didn't release all the hostages.
So. An interesting dynamic and use of rhetoric to achieve a political aim, or he is memoryless and impulsive (huge, if true), or he has taken the roller-coaster to goo goo ga ga land.
I suspect it is the latter, although @williamglenn will confirm the former. In some respects the fact that Trump is as mad as a box of frogs makes Starmer's capitulation even more egregious.
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
It's going to end with British soldiers deployed permanently in Ukraine, protecting US corporation's mining equipment.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
There is the Trump being the embodiment of all evil who we can do business with option.
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
Well, yes, and you can add Blair's love in with Clinton, Cameron's with Obama and even May and Trump and even back to MacMillan and JFK.
It may be it's easier when you speak the same language though Churchill had a view on that.
Badenoch and Farage would have been exactly the same.
This is meant to be the cooler season before the REAL heat in March-May
Frosty morning in the east London 'burbs. Was 0 degrees overnight...
Its was a glorious start to the last day of winter*, minus 1.3 deg C and clear blue skies. NIce to see the sun. Seven years ago the beast from the East was burying much of Wiltshire in a thick blanket of snow with the temperature not getting about -3 for the day.
*By the only proper and correct version of the seasons - The Met Office definition.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
'Fundamental moral values' may well be held by world leaders including, for example, Starmer and KCIII. Lots are available. Experience suggests that they are mostly some version of situationist or pragmatist WRT what they hold as fundamental. They are unlikely to be in power long is they are Kantian deontologists, emotivists or utilitarians.
It would be nice to think that all world leaders believe, for example, that torturing children for fun is always wrong; but I am not confident this is the case. But if I were a world leader I might have to shake hands with some such. One of many reasons for leaving the job to others
Of course. But Starmer, Lab, and their supporters have positioned themselves above others who have more flexible, grubby beliefs. And in contradistinction to eg, oh I don't know, the Conservative Party.
You can't parade yourself as a paragon of virtue and then slum it with the worst of them because practicality.
I would at the very least expect a mass resignation by PB Lab types from their party following such a display.
Good luck. I think your moral charge against Starmer and the Labour government (a government that overall I find unimpressive) needs a lot of fine detail and specificity in the indictment before it comes before the International Social Democrat Criminal Court. What, exactly, have they done?
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
It's going to end with British soldiers deployed permanently in Ukraine, protecting US corporation's mining equipment.
But not many of them. We will see how many boots on the ground the aid budget can pay for. I would imagine that 79% of it will be spent on advertising trying to recruit the yoot because otherwise there is no serious troop formation that could be sent to Ukraine (including R&R, training, post-deployment leave, rotations, etc) with what we have today.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
Lighted is a word. It's the opposite of delighted. Just like gruntled is a word (with no less authority than P G Wodehouse).
The most interesting thing about the whole episode was The Donald misunderremembering that he called Zelensky a dictator.
I have noted previously that he made an equally forthright pronouncement about Hamas having to release all, not some of the hostages the other day or else. Hamas didn't release all the hostages.
So. An interesting dynamic and use of rhetoric to achieve a political aim, or he is memoryless and impulsive (huge, if true), or he has taken the roller-coaster to goo goo ga ga land.
I suspect it is the latter, although @williamglenn will confirm the former. In some respects the fact that Trump is as mad as a box of frogs makes Starmer's capitulation even more egregious.
I think it is Trump *dis*underremembering - he lives in a world where truth changes to met his current needs.
I do think [failure to back Canada] was a mis-step - it made Starmer look unneccessarly craven. There was also a better answer available to the question of whether we could beat Russia. BUT... that said, dealing with Trump at such a finely balanced time was a hospital pass.
It will be fascinaring to read the accounts of what was going on in the background. It seems that Trump had not as good a hand as he thought. Probably was told by Macron that the Europeans would undercut any Ukraine deal if Trump didn't treat Ukraine/Zelenskyy with more respect. Trump's position has undergone quite the volte face. Denying he would have ever have dissed Zelenskyy, renewing the sanctions against Russia for another year...it does seem that the grown-ups have been busy in the background. We'll see how today's signing goes.
But I suspect Russia is spitting teeth. Their entire strategy in Ukraine has been about survivng to the point where Trump freezes the conflict. Yesterday was terrible for Putin - 2,710 casualties, 13 tanks lost, 38 armoured personnel carriers, 92 artillery systems. Russian and North Korean troops under siege within Kursk - Russia proper - with those trying to relieve them being destroyed. Ammunition not getting to the front.
It's a shit show for Putin.
I also suspect Trump is starting to get some blowback from the impact of his policy announcements. Most of us will have seen the huge upswelling of anti-US sentiment in Canada, the boycotts of US products and travel, and also the turbulent town hall meetings some GOP politicians have been having in their patches, voters angry about Musk and his antics, people who've lost their jobs, farmers who have lost their USAID contracts, and the rest. Such political discontent will filter up and even someone with a thick a skin (and head) as Trump will have noticed by now.
I think you give Trump too much credit.
In my view yesterday was just a reflection that Starmer was the last person to have his ear and, because he'd been in a meeting with Starmer he hadn't been watching TV (probably watching Putin).
Thus he is convinced that Starmer is a 'good guy'. Credit to Starmer for doing his homework to say the right things to Trump to get this outcome. I suspect Zelenskyy will achieve the same today, but this will only last until his next call with Putin.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
'Fundamental moral values' may well be held by world leaders including, for example, Starmer and KCIII. Lots are available. Experience suggests that they are mostly some version of situationist or pragmatist WRT what they hold as fundamental. They are unlikely to be in power long is they are Kantian deontologists, emotivists or utilitarians.
It would be nice to think that all world leaders believe, for example, that torturing children for fun is always wrong; but I am not confident this is the case. But if I were a world leader I might have to shake hands with some such. One of many reasons for leaving the job to others
Of course. But Starmer, Lab, and their supporters have positioned themselves above others who have more flexible, grubby beliefs. And in contradistinction to eg, oh I don't know, the Conservative Party.
You can't parade yourself as a paragon of virtue and then slum it with the worst of them because practicality.
I would at the very least expect a mass resignation by PB Lab types from their party following such a display.
Good luck. I think your moral charge against Starmer and the Labour government (a government that overall I find unimpressive) needs a lot of fine detail and specificity in the indictment before it comes before the International Social Democrat Criminal Court. What, exactly, have they done?
They have criticised a foreign leader, not on his policies or approach to climate change or on tariffs on bananas, but have said, rather, that he is a tyrant. That he is evil. He is frequently compared to dictators if not called a dictator.
Exactly, they have jumped into bed with said monster and literally slapped him on the back.
That is some seriously fucked up value projection there.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
Canada after Oz and NZ our closest ally? Give over. Our closest ally is the EU and its constituent countries. Name me one joint initiative we have with Canada to do something about something.
Long memories of WW1 and WW2. You have to feel that the Canadians get a raw deal in the public memory of D Day - one fifth of the landing beaches was entirely for Canadian troops.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
Canada after Oz and NZ our closest ally? Give over. Our closest ally is the EU and its constituent countries. Name me one joint initiative we have with Canada to do something about something.
Long memories of WW1 and WW2. You have to feel that the Canadians get a raw deal in the public memory of D Day - one fifth of the landing beaches was entirely for Canadian troops.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
I'm not a fan some of Labour's recent policy changes, specifically the huge overseas aid cutbacks, but I thought Starmer played a weak hand very well yesterday. I don't think we have a realistic alternative to dealing with Trump, and Starmer avoided giving any concessions that matter. Being friendly to dodgy characters is part of being PM.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
This is meant to be the cooler season before the REAL heat in March-May
Frosty morning in the east London 'burbs. Was 0 degrees overnight...
Its was a glorious start to the last day of winter*, minus 1.3 deg C and clear blue skies. NIce to see the sun. Seven years ago the beast from the East was burying much of Wiltshire in a thick blanket of snow with the temperature not getting about -3 for the day.
*By the only proper and correct version of the seasons - The Met Office definition.
Spring starts with the first yellow of the crocus visible, and is a great long season lasting about four months. Birds have been chatting each other up for some time already, and putting in planning applications for new sites. Busy time for multiple home owning and polygamous wrens.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
I'm not a fan some of Labour's recent policy changes, specifically the huge overseas aid cutbacks, but I thought Starmer played a weak hand very well yesterday. I don't think we have a realistic alternative to dealing with Trump, and Starmer avoided giving any concessions that matter. Being friendly to dodgy characters is part of being PM.
If we have a weak hand (we do) then why did he spend the previous XX years criticising someone he hoped he would one day be invited to meet as PM.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
I'm not a fan some of Labour's recent policy changes, specifically the huge overseas aid cutbacks, but I thought Starmer played a weak hand very well yesterday. I don't think we have a realistic alternative to dealing with Trump, and Starmer avoided giving any concessions that matter. Being friendly to dodgy characters is part of being PM.
I'm not happy with it Nick, and Starmer's capitulation was vomit inducing. Mind you I don't suppose, Badenoch, Sunak, Truss, or Johnson would have come away with any more and Farage a lot less.
Yep, Sir Keir has played a blinder. The raw politics of this are just sensational. The British Right are in disarray. I see even one or two posters on here, who were hitherto lecturing us about how Trump was a force for good and that his critics had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', are now harrumphing that Sir Keir was insufficiently anti-Trump. Where do they go from here? Even their great cause of Chagos has now been neutralized.
Element of this. And these people claim to be patriots:
Starmer's triumph, if that's what it was, will be short-lived however. Trump is just too capricious.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
I think you are attacking a straw man, for the most part. I don't doubt some in Lab are worthy of your criticism, but that's true of all parties eg Cons' facile belief in the power of the market to right all wrongs.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
Canada after Oz and NZ our closest ally? Give over. Our closest ally is the EU and its constituent countries. Name me one joint initiative we have with Canada to do something about something.
Long memories of WW1 and WW2. You have to feel that the Canadians get a raw deal in the public memory of D Day - one fifth of the landing beaches was entirely for Canadian troops.
Sure. 80 years ago, that said. What about now.
Never discount the role of memory in how we see the world. Take the special relationship. Is it really anything to right home about? Probably not. But go back to WW2 and we were as close as you could ever imagine. And we hosted millions of americans in the UK during the war. They loved us and we loved them.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
I'm not a fan some of Labour's recent policy changes, specifically the huge overseas aid cutbacks, but I thought Starmer played a weak hand very well yesterday. I don't think we have a realistic alternative to dealing with Trump, and Starmer avoided giving any concessions that matter. Being friendly to dodgy characters is part of being PM.
If we have a weak hand (we do) then why did he spend the previous XX years criticising someone he hoped he would one day be invited to meet as PM.
Because opposition and election winning is different from being government. The opposite is also true, mutatis mutandis. As new editor of the Spectator, there is nothing Gove doesn't know about how to put the world right.
We might be reaching a point where anti-Trumpism is the great cause for the British Right to rally around. Boris is the key to this. If his next article absolutely lambasts Sir Keir for his abject fawning over the Orange Demon then it's on.
Yep, Sir Keir has played a blinder. The raw politics of this are just sensational. The British Right are in disarray. I see even one or two posters on here, who were hitherto lecturing us about how Trump was a force for good and that his critics had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', are now harrumphing that Sir Keir was insufficiently anti-Trump. Where do they go from here? Even their great cause of Chagos has now been neutralized.
There are some on here who’s hatred of Starmer outweighs their support of our country. They wanted Starmer to fail in Washington. They want Starmer to fail in the UK, and f**k what’s best for the rest of us. There are words to describe such people. One begins with T. Another begins with Q.
I'm no fan of Starmer, but I think realpolitik meant he had to take the tone he did yesterday, except on Canada, which was a disgrace. The American alliance is simply irreplaceable for us on so much, particularly security and intelligence.
But saying there isn't a divide on Canada is absurd - are we really going to put 25% tariffs on them next month?
I don't think it will have any effect long-term though on his popularity here though, because one swallow (even if that swallow is Trump's ... OK, I won't go there) doesn't make a summer, and voters don't tend to care much about foreign policy issues. It might discredit Starmer further with the Momentum (is that still a thing?) crowd, but they hated him anyway.
He didn’t quite say that
He said
- you are looking to divide us when we are not divided - We didn’t discuss Canada
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
Already made that comparison. This need be nowhere near as damaging.
Yep, Sir Keir has played a blinder. The raw politics of this are just sensational. The British Right are in disarray. I see even one or two posters on here, who were hitherto lecturing us about how Trump was a force for good and that his critics had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', are now harrumphing that Sir Keir was insufficiently anti-Trump. Where do they go from here? Even their great cause of Chagos has now been neutralized.
Element of this. And these people claim to be patriots:
Starmer's triumph, if that's what it was, will be short-lived however. Trump is just too capricious.
Maybe true, but Starmer can only play the game as it is right now; and SFAICS he has given away nothing, and may have gained a little. Events and change is what political leadership deals with.
As of this day, for example, Canada is an independent state and there are no new Trump 2025 tariffs on it (though if you listen only to words you may think there are). Next week may be different.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
I think you are attacking a straw man, for the most part. I don't doubt some in Lab are worthy of your criticism, but that's true of all parties eg Cons' facile belief in the power of the market to right all wrongs.
Not at all. Either you espouse your values always and everywhere or you take your place amongst the ranks of hypocritical, amoral, and, shall we say, disingenuous politicians.
Now I think that of course that is how politicians should act; the world is indeed one of pragmatism and realpolitik. But Lab, and its supporters have made a virtue of its values and how they are different and whatnot. When as we have seen, of course they aren't different at all.
If you, and all Lab supporters, can reconcile your views of Trump (which went beyond mere criticism and deemed him to be a tyrant) with your Party doing business with Trump and behaving in the way we saw Starmer behave, then that is one for you and your genies.
It says much about Starmer that his 'best day' is the one where he crawls on his belly to Trump. Strange to find myself wishing we had Macron as leader instead.
Both the compliments and condemnation of Starmer is well over the top.
Starmer managed to avoid soiling himself. Good.
He did more than that. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Trump has the potential to be either. Both. Simultaneously. Starmer and the team have played the White House as needed playing to gain the guy's attention and respect. We know the latter can be fleeting, but better to be gaining traction than being shoved away.
Whatever we may think of Trump, he is the US President. What he does with regards to US law and their constitution is their business, but we can do what we can to stop him doing bad things like breaking up NATO and crashing the global economy
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
It's a bit late in life to be discovering that politicians aren't particularly consistent.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
[1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
[2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
[3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
'Fundamental moral values' may well be held by world leaders including, for example, Starmer and KCIII. Lots are available. Experience suggests that they are mostly some version of situationist or pragmatist WRT what they hold as fundamental. They are unlikely to be in power long is they are Kantian deontologists, emotivists or utilitarians.
It would be nice to think that all world leaders believe, for example, that torturing children for fun is always wrong; but I am not confident this is the case. But if I were a world leader I might have to shake hands with some such. One of many reasons for leaving the job to others
Of course. But Starmer, Lab, and their supporters have positioned themselves above others who have more flexible, grubby beliefs. And in contradistinction to eg, oh I don't know, the Conservative Party.
You can't parade yourself as a paragon of virtue and then slum it with the worst of them because practicality.
I would at the very least expect a mass resignation by PB Lab types from their party following such a display.
Good luck. I think your moral charge against Starmer and the Labour government (a government that overall I find unimpressive) needs a lot of fine detail and specificity in the indictment before it comes before the International Social Democrat Criminal Court. What, exactly, have they done?
They have criticised a foreign leader, not on his policies or approach to climate change or on tariffs on bananas, but have said, rather, that he is a tyrant. That he is evil. He is frequently compared to dictators if not called a dictator.
Exactly, they have jumped into bed with said monster and literally slapped him on the back.
That is some seriously fucked up value projection there.
Let us accept that Starmer/Labour know perfectly well that they are dealing with a tyrant gangster oligarchy - as indeed I think they are. That fact alone does not tell me how to conduct relationships with Trump or others personally, or USA generally. In particular we are bound with them over decades in respect of NATO, integration, academia, industry, trade, AI, tech, intelligence and an infinity of other things.
Bed jumping and back slapping are metaphors, not charges. What would a properly moral Labour government do different? Let is take as given that it has to govern UK well, not trash the country, be sound on defence and protect difficult alliances for the sake of the future.
Yep, Sir Keir has played a blinder. The raw politics of this are just sensational. The British Right are in disarray. I see even one or two posters on here, who were hitherto lecturing us about how Trump was a force for good and that his critics had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', are now harrumphing that Sir Keir was insufficiently anti-Trump. Where do they go from here? Even their great cause of Chagos has now been neutralized.
Element of this. And these people claim to be patriots:
Starmer's triumph, if that's what it was, will be short-lived however. Trump is just too capricious.
Maybe true, but Starmer can only play the game as it is right now; and SFAICS he has given away nothing, and may have gained a little. Events and change is what political leadership deals with.
As of this day, for example, Canada is an independent state and there are no new Trump 2025 tariffs on it (though if you listen only to words you may think there are). Next week may be different.
I agree. I think you can reasonably say Starmer should never have gone to Washington, or if he did go, he should maintain a somewhat hostile approach, and sod the consequences. But if you think Starmer should engage with Trump, I think he did pretty well. He laid the stuff that doesn't matter on thick - the royal invitation - he pushed back on misinformation and prioritised the specific outcomes he wanted to achieve; American support for the Ukrainian position and no tariffs for the UK. He may or may not succeed on these goals but he was focused on them.
I had been sensing this at my own work, but it seemed to be at odds with everyone else’s experience. Perhaps it was real after all.
Starmer leaves the country for a couple of days and economic confidence rebounds. Clearly he's the Jonah. Take the 25/1 against Reeves as next Prime Minister.
Both the compliments and condemnation of Starmer is well over the top.
Starmer managed to avoid soiling himself. Good.
I think he did a little better than that. Coming away with a commitment to extend Russian sanctions for an extra year is a tangible win that Macron couldn't get. Every day we delay normalisation of relations between the US and Russia is another day we get closer to Putin being shot in the back and pushed out of a window.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
"Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb ("She lit the candles and the stage was lighted")[1]
Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit" (A torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit) and something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". (A path is lighted, a stage is lighted)[2]
There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now[3]
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
I think you are attacking a straw man, for the most part. I don't doubt some in Lab are worthy of your criticism, but that's true of all parties eg Cons' facile belief in the power of the market to right all wrongs.
Not at all. Either you espouse your values always and everywhere or you take your place amongst the ranks of hypocritical, amoral, and, shall we say, disingenuous politicians.
Now I think that of course that is how politicians should act; the world is indeed one of pragmatism and realpolitik. But Lab, and its supporters have made a virtue of its values and how they are different and whatnot. When as we have seen, of course they aren't different at all.
If you, and all Lab supporters, can reconcile your views of Trump (which went beyond mere criticism and deemed him to be a tyrant) with your Party doing business with Trump and behaving in the way we saw Starmer behave, then that is one for you and your genies.
I think we're going round in circles. I don't buy the idea that members of the Labour party (of whom I am not one) are or should be any more led by their morals than members of any other party.
I do think our recent governments have set a spectacularly low bar on moral hypocrisy, and those govts happen to have been Con ones, but that signifies little imv, except that Brexit has turned the Tory party temporarily insane.
That Starmer promised to raise that incredibly low bar does not preclude him doing the dirty politics thing to some extent when needed.
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
'Fundamental moral values' may well be held by world leaders including, for example, Starmer and KCIII. Lots are available. Experience suggests that they are mostly some version of situationist or pragmatist WRT what they hold as fundamental. They are unlikely to be in power long is they are Kantian deontologists, emotivists or utilitarians.
It would be nice to think that all world leaders believe, for example, that torturing children for fun is always wrong; but I am not confident this is the case. But if I were a world leader I might have to shake hands with some such. One of many reasons for leaving the job to others
Of course. But Starmer, Lab, and their supporters have positioned themselves above others who have more flexible, grubby beliefs. And in contradistinction to eg, oh I don't know, the Conservative Party.
You can't parade yourself as a paragon of virtue and then slum it with the worst of them because practicality.
I would at the very least expect a mass resignation by PB Lab types from their party following such a display.
Good luck. I think your moral charge against Starmer and the Labour government (a government that overall I find unimpressive) needs a lot of fine detail and specificity in the indictment before it comes before the International Social Democrat Criminal Court. What, exactly, have they done?
They have criticised a foreign leader, not on his policies or approach to climate change or on tariffs on bananas, but have said, rather, that he is a tyrant. That he is evil. He is frequently compared to dictators if not called a dictator.
Exactly, they have jumped into bed with said monster and literally slapped him on the back.
That is some seriously fucked up value projection there.
Let us accept that Starmer/Labour know perfectly well that they are dealing with a tyrant gangster oligarchy - as indeed I think they are. That fact alone does not tell me how to conduct relationships with Trump or others personally, or USA generally. In particular we are bound with them over decades in respect of NATO, integration, academia, industry, trade, AI, tech, intelligence and an infinity of other things.
Bed jumping and back slapping are metaphors, not charges. What would a properly moral Labour government do different? Let is take as given that it has to govern UK well, not trash the country, be sound on defence and protect difficult alliances for the sake of the future.
It says much about Starmer that his 'best day' is the one where he crawls on his belly to Trump. Strange to find myself wishing we had Macron as leader instead.
We don't know, and I guess we probably won't know, which had the best outcome in meeting with Trump, but my gut feeling is I agree with you. I hate grovelling. I won't do it and I don't like it being done to me.
It is a sad state of affairs where politicians have to think about how they act in front of Trump rather than just have a grown up conversation in case he subsequently goes away and throws a tantrum.
Starmer's getting close to Trump probably won't harm him much with redwall voters. However it might see Labour leak more votes to the Greens and LDs from the type of 'progressive' middle class voters who deserted them after Blair invaded Iraq until the Tory and LD coalition and Ed Miliband's apology for Iraq
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
Depends on the wider context. If it's like a dragon in a George and the Dragon pub sign ...
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
[1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
[2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
[3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
Excellent. I had no idea what that was about until hitting the link.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
Canada after Oz and NZ our closest ally? Give over. Our closest ally is the EU and its constituent countries. Name me one joint initiative we have with Canada to do something about something.
NATO, Trans Pacific Partnership. We also share a head of state with Canada, Australia and NZ unlike the US and EU
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
Depends on the wider context. If it's like a dragon in a George and the Dragon pub sign ...
Those signs are a disgrace.
Bloody unemployed immigrant knights coming here and making extinct, our fictional wildlife?
Bet there was a huge queue at the job centre for Proper British Knights after that.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
As far as I can tell, it's the first time you have ever brought it up. Happy to be proved wrong.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
And of course everyone has been happily forgetting climate change, sl;agging off net zero, etc. etc.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
This is meant to be the cooler season before the REAL heat in March-May
Frosty morning in the east London 'burbs. Was 0 degrees overnight...
Its was a glorious start to the last day of winter*, minus 1.3 deg C and clear blue skies. NIce to see the sun. Seven years ago the beast from the East was burying much of Wiltshire in a thick blanket of snow with the temperature not getting about -3 for the day.
*By the only proper and correct version of the seasons - The Met Office definition.
Spring starts with the first yellow of the crocus visible, and is a great long season lasting about four months. Birds have been chatting each other up for some time already, and putting in planning applications for new sites. Busy time for multiple home owning and polygamous wrens.
Its always a good time of year when you get a sparkling sunny day, there is more warmth in the sun now too. Its been a cold winter. Not dominated by snow and ice but long periods of grey cool/cold weather. The bulbs are up, my daffodils look lovely and I am thinking about the allotment. Spring!
It says much about Starmer that his 'best day' is the one where he crawls on his belly to Trump. Strange to find myself wishing we had Macron as leader instead.
We don't know, and I guess we probably won't know, which had the best outcome in meeting with Trump, but my gut feeling is I agree with you. I hate grovelling. I won't do it and I don't like it being done to me.
It is a sad state of affairs where politicians have to think about how they act in front of Trump rather than just have a grown up conversation in case he subsequently goes away and throws a tantrum.
Agreed. I think too that the offer of a State Visit, even if it's 'only Balmoral' was a step too far. And I think it was wrong, especially in that context, not to mention Canada. I'm no monarchist, but the Canadians are Commonwealth citizens and we should stand beside them. To be honest, this visit, coupled with the reduction in foreign aid, has lowered my opinion of Starmer. However, I'm willing to wait and see how the other European leaders react today.
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
Depends on the wider context. If it's like a dragon in a George and the Dragon pub sign ...
Those signs are a disgrace.
Bloody unemployed immigrant knights coming here and making extinct, our fictional wildlife?
Bet there was a huge queue at the job centre for Proper British Knights after that.
Indeed, hard on the wyrms/orms/dreigiau. But they didn't have the RSPB and wildlife conservation legislation in those days.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
As far as I can tell, it's the first time you have ever brought it up. Happy to be proved wrong.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
And of course everyone has been happily forgetting climate change, sl;agging off net zero, etc. etc.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
It's like a Greek tragedy - humanity handed the tools to destroy ourselves but the Gods, and we can't stop ourselves.
It says much about Starmer that his 'best day' is the one where he crawls on his belly to Trump. Strange to find myself wishing we had Macron as leader instead.
We don't know, and I guess we probably won't know, which had the best outcome in meeting with Trump, but my gut feeling is I agree with you. I hate grovelling. I won't do it and I don't like it being done to me.
It is a sad state of affairs where politicians have to think about how they act in front of Trump rather than just have a grown up conversation in case he subsequently goes away and throws a tantrum.
Yes, it's sad. He didn't grovel. He represented our interests well. He doesn't choose other world leaders he has to deal with. Many are even worse.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
"Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb ("She lit the candles and the stage was lighted")[1]
Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit" (A torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit) and something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". (A path is lighted, a stage is lighted)[2]
There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now[3]
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
Statues are always difficult, especially of evil figures in history. Preston rightly celebrates one of its finest engineers and inventors and I will pay my respects by visiting their statue this morning, but I want to acknowledge ahead of time the hurt they caused.
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
Depends on the wider context. If it's like a dragon in a George and the Dragon pub sign ...
Those signs are a disgrace.
Bloody unemployed immigrant knights coming here and making extinct, our fictional wildlife?
Bet there was a huge queue at the job centre for Proper British Knights after that.
Indeed, hard on the wyrms/orms/dreigiau. But they didn't have the RSPB and wildlife conservation legislation in those days.
Though the lack of RSCPA meant that, at least, they weren't being killed off by pretend helpers.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
"Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb ("She lit the candles and the stage was lighted")[1]
Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit" (A torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit) and something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". (A path is lighted, a stage is lighted)[2]
There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now[3]
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
OED online thinks ‘green light’ would take no object, so ‘given the green light to...’.
Whereas ‘green-light’ with a hyphen and taking an object is mainly American so should be banned from PB except in an ironic sense, where ‘green-lighted’ would be the past thingy.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
As far as I can tell, it's the first time you have ever brought it up. Happy to be proved wrong.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
And of course everyone has been happily forgetting climate change, sl;agging off net zero, etc. etc.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
It's like a Greek tragedy - humanity handed the tools to destroy ourselves but the Gods, and we can't stop ourselves.
Greek myths and tragedies, like the bible, are there for a reason.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
"Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb ("She lit the candles and the stage was lighted")[1]
Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit" (A torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit) and something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". (A path is lighted, a stage is lighted)[2]
There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now[3]
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
As far as I can tell, it's the first time you have ever brought it up. Happy to be proved wrong.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
And of course everyone has been happily forgetting climate change, sl;agging off net zero, etc. etc.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
It's like a Greek tragedy - humanity handed the tools to destroy ourselves but the Gods, and we can't stop ourselves.
Greek myths and tragedies, like the bible, are there for a reason.
Ha, now you make me want to ramble about how the stories of Prometheus and Epimetheus/Pandora were ripped off by the Bible in the Garden of Eden.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
[1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
[2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
[3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
It is fascinating to watch the about turn of the so-called “balanced” posters.
Apparently Chagos was the worst deal in history and we were waiting for Trump to scupper it as he would see how terrible it is.
Now Trump is supporting the deal apparently we should never have gone to Trump at all.
Accept it, Starmer has once again, confounded everyone.
One of the hardest things in the world is to see oneself, or one's group, or nation, exactly the size it is. It's really hard to avoid the cliff edges of over-estimating and of under-estimating importance. To demand too much, or too little.
Britain can't demand that the USA listens to us, and that is independent of whether their current President is a good guy or a baddie. But equally, Britain isn't an irrelevance to USA thinking. I think what follows from that is that the UK has to pick its demands and its balance of flattery and force carefully. It's not an easy situation, and it won't look that dignified.
Having said that, I suspect it's where SKS is comfortable and quite effective at operating.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
As far as I can tell, it's the first time you have ever brought it up. Happy to be proved wrong.
(and Thailand comes up a lot in studies as a country that is likely to be completed ****** by climate change. Topography, climate, population density etc etc. Enjoy it while you can.)
And of course everyone has been happily forgetting climate change, sl;agging off net zero, etc. etc.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
It's like a Greek tragedy - humanity handed the tools to destroy ourselves but the Gods, and we can't stop ourselves.
Greek myths and tragedies, like the bible, are there for a reason.
And that reason is so Stephen Fry can bore the pants trousers off us on Countdown this week, unless Colin heads him off at the pass and directs him to luvvy stories about facing Lillee and Alderman's bowling or meeting Frank Sinatra.
I think the other big win for Starmer vs Macron is managing to avoid tariffs by opening up trade deal talks for the UK while Macron was unable to get Trump to commit to holding back tariffs on the EU. Really Macron played a poor hand very badly coming away with no commitments on Ukraine, no commitments on security and no commitments on trade. Starmer got an extra year of US sanctions vs Russia, a verbal commitment to NATO/Article 5 (though it's not worth anything IMO), and a commitment to negotiate a trade deal that avoids tariffs on UK exports to the US.
On the scorecard Starmer has played a blinder and I have to hand it to him (and Mandy) for reading the situation perfectly.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
[1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
[2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
[3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
Starmer's getting close to Trump probably won't harm him much with redwall voters. However it might see Labour leak more votes to the Greens and LDs from the type of 'progressive' middle class voters who deserted them after Blair invaded Iraq until the Tory and LD coalition and Ed Miliband's apology for Iraq
Do people see this as "getting close to Trump"? Starmer hasn't kowtowed to Trump's policy positions: he's pushed a pro-NATO/pro-Ukraine line etc. He went to Washington and smiled politely, like what you have to do when visiting Great Aunt Doris, who's going a bit demented.
Starmer's getting close to Trump probably won't harm him much with redwall voters. However it might see Labour leak more votes to the Greens and LDs from the type of 'progressive' middle class voters who deserted them after Blair invaded Iraq until the Tory and LD coalition and Ed Miliband's apology for Iraq
Is suspect Sir Keir has game planned that. Labour voters who defect to the Lib Dems will mostly strengthen the Lib Dems in the seats the Tories need to win back. Sir Keir really is a sly old sausage.
The wheel was good, the internet started well until Musk got his hands on it, penicillin was great. On the other hand, Gengis Khan was a bit of an arsehole.
Probably, on balance, worth it. I assume you were talking about humanity's run on the earth which seems like it might be nearing its close.
I didn’t have high expectations but was a tad surprised at the depth of the special relationship-ing (aka how far can we get up Trump’s arse) going on. As I’ve no doubt tediously related before I believe aesthetics is at the bottom of everything - books, paintings, clothes, how you cut your hair, and of course politics. It’s depressing how easily everyone buys into the gross Trump aesthetic; the chuckling, the touching, that crass, stupid fucking letter. Trump grabbed Starmer by the pussy and Starmer liked it. Let joy be unconfined, Wes Streeting currently in ecstasy on R4 over the love in.
It's a rare moment when you and I are united in disgust but this is one
Setting aside the Chagos Surrender, the whole thing was vomit-worthy, from "Fuck Canada" to "let's see how many times I can touch the Donald, hopefully more than Macron"
It was like some time-travel video of diplomats from ancient Siam kow-towing to a mad Chinese emperor
As predicted, the sudden faux concern about Canada.
What?! I've always said Trump's tariffs (like most of his insane economic plans) are cruel, stupid, and damaging, especially against a friend and ally like Canada
And Canada, after Oz and maybe NZ, is surely the UK's closest ally
Recall: I am in some ways quite pro-Trump - almost alone on here, I approve of all his anti-Woke and migration stuff
But Trump's treatment of Canada is casually disgraceful, designed (it seems) to be insulting and belittling, and a better politician than Starmer could and should have found a way of expressing our alliance and friendship with Canada without giving the Donald an aneurysm
Canada after Oz and NZ our closest ally? Give over. Our closest ally is the EU and its constituent countries. Name me one joint initiative we have with Canada to do something about something.
NATO, Trans Pacific Partnership. We also share a head of state with Canada, Australia and NZ unlike the US and EU
We're also together in the AUSCANNZUKUS military alliance, including Five Eyes. British forces train at CFB Suffield.
Feck me, what are you lot getting yer knickers in a twist for? I'd love Starmer to have gone buckwild, called Trump a bastard, headbutted him and then walk off flicking the Vs at the camera. Unfortunately, it's politics, baby, and Starmer has to do what PMs of smaller nations have to do when they meet The Donald.
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
"Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb ("She lit the candles and the stage was lighted")[1]
Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit" (A torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit) and something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". (A path is lighted, a stage is lighted)[2]
There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now[3]
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
I think you are attacking a straw man, for the most part. I don't doubt some in Lab are worthy of your criticism, but that's true of all parties eg Cons' facile belief in the power of the market to right all wrongs.
Not at all. Either you espouse your values always and everywhere or you take your place amongst the ranks of hypocritical, amoral, and, shall we say, disingenuous politicians.
Now I think that of course that is how politicians should act; the world is indeed one of pragmatism and realpolitik. But Lab, and its supporters have made a virtue of its values and how they are different and whatnot. When as we have seen, of course they aren't different at all.
If you, and all Lab supporters, can reconcile your views of Trump (which went beyond mere criticism and deemed him to be a tyrant) with your Party doing business with Trump and behaving in the way we saw Starmer behave, then that is one for you and your genies.
What a good politician tries to be is semi-principled.
I think the other big win for Starmer vs Macron is managing to avoid tariffs by opening up trade deal talks for the UK while Macron was unable to get Trump to commit to holding back tariffs on the EU. Really Macron played a poor hand very badly coming away with no commitments on Ukraine, no commitments on security and no commitments on trade. Starmer got an extra year of US sanctions vs Russia, a verbal commitment to NATO/Article 5 (though it's not worth anything IMO), and a commitment to negotiate a trade deal that avoids tariffs on UK exports to the US.
On the scorecard Starmer has played a blinder and I have to hand it to him (and Mandy) for reading the situation perfectly.
Agreed. It was very noticeable that Macron spent the press conference claiming Trump had agreed to things that Trump wouldn't confirm.
I don't think either of them bombed, given the context but I'd prefer Starmer's (small) concrete wins over Macron's less stodgy delivery of not much.
“This week it was higher defence spending and aid cuts; in the weeks to come, I am told, it will be welfare reform, an overhaul of the machinery of government, and new immigration restrictions. (No 10 has its sights trained on the care sector, which it believes is abusing visas to suppress wages.)”
What's the problem? Starmer has just green-lighted the invasion.
Green-lit, surely?
I was debating that with myself and I chose "lighted" rather than "lit" under the circumstances. I am not sure if "lighted" is even a word. It probably is in Birmingham where I come from.
There are several possible explanations
[1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
[2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
[3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.
Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
So to sum up, we as a nation are beyond grateful that it turns out the school bully likes his ego massaged and boy did we do a lot of massaging.
Nonsense. The politically thoughtful will have squirmed on behalf of Starmer, and indeed HMKC III who were doing their job for the rest of us. We don't get to choose the other national leaders we have to deal with, nor do we choose where the politics of the last 200 years places us right now WRT what has to be done to protect and defend ourselves. Did Starmer's critics note the affirmation by Trump of Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
Hey slow down, cowboy. I'm Mr Realpolitik so what has to be done has to be done. But I'm interested in how those visceral pro-Lab, anti-Trump types will take it.
It's all very well saying you have to be practical (it's what I say), but you then can't affect to hold some set of fundamental moral values that are inviolate. So interested to see how people finesse it all.
Not very well. If you thought Starmer's star couldn't descend any further you would be wrong. It's like @Big_G_NorthWales posted yesterday, those who might be impressed by Starmer's tightrope walking won't vote for him anyway, and those of us who might have been minded to were outraged by the State Visit invite.
I suspect you're trolling as you were before the election but, in case you're serious, I am one who will probably vote Starmer next time and was impressed by his tightrope walk.
I might be a leftie but I'm not an idiot.
Ah great, we have one.
So I'm sure (were I to trawl back through them all) that some/many/all of your posts about Trump have been condemnatory in the strongest possible terms. If not, then you are unique, and take this post as addressing those whose posts have been.
Either you hold to your view of Trump being the embodiment of all evil, or you think he is someone we can do business with. If you think the former, then what is the point of Starmer supposedly representing a decent, moral code if he jettisons it to humour a tyrant.
It's like me writing you a cheque for a million pounds and keeping it in my back pocket.
You're right about my views of Trump.
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
So what is the point of positioning himself as a holder of "good" values if he doesn't deploy them when dealing with, by his, your, and probably most all Lab supporters, a tyrant.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
I think hypocrisy, deployed well, is a vital component of international relations.
Maybe. But it hardly sits well within the Lab view of its own behaviour and approach to politics, now does it.
I think you are attacking a straw man, for the most part. I don't doubt some in Lab are worthy of your criticism, but that's true of all parties eg Cons' facile belief in the power of the market to right all wrongs.
Not at all. Either you espouse your values always and everywhere or you take your place amongst the ranks of hypocritical, amoral, and, shall we say, disingenuous politicians.
Now I think that of course that is how politicians should act; the world is indeed one of pragmatism and realpolitik. But Lab, and its supporters have made a virtue of its values and how they are different and whatnot. When as we have seen, of course they aren't different at all.
If you, and all Lab supporters, can reconcile your views of Trump (which went beyond mere criticism and deemed him to be a tyrant) with your Party doing business with Trump and behaving in the way we saw Starmer behave, then that is one for you and your genies.
What a good politician tries to be is semi-principled.
“This week it was higher defence spending and aid cuts; in the weeks to come, I am told, it will be welfare reform, an overhaul of the machinery of government, and new immigration restrictions. (No 10 has its sights trained on the care sector, which it believes is abusing visas to suppress wages.)”
Starmer has found his voice. Tanks firmly parked on Labour’s lawn.
Interesting that someone is finally prepared to say what everyone knew - the Liberal pact with Business on immigration.
EDIT: We have numerous cases, now, of companies selling visas for non-existent jobs. If you consider how much people pay for a RIB ride across the channel - yes, worth more that. It's a big business, I think.
“This week it was higher defence spending and aid cuts; in the weeks to come, I am told, it will be welfare reform, an overhaul of the machinery of government, and new immigration restrictions. (No 10 has its sights trained on the care sector, which it believes is abusing visas to suppress wages.)”
Comments
Notice that the UK did business with Stalin, Mao and some other interesting characters. Signed treaties with them..... Not because we enthused about their moral character, but because we were trying to avert worse things.
This bizarre praise for Starmer’s shiny-eyed fawning over Trump reminds me quite distinctly of the eager response to Blair’s initial love-in with Dubya Bush. And that didn’t end so well
I'm just not much of a fan of empty grandstanding in politics.
The point of Starmer acting as he did yesterday was to not poke the bear until we have the bear spray ready. Simple as that.
I have noted previously that he made an equally forthright pronouncement about Hamas having to release all, not some of the hostages the other day or else. Hamas didn't release all the hostages.
So. An interesting dynamic and use of rhetoric to achieve a political aim, or he is memoryless and impulsive (huge, if true), or he has taken the roller-coaster to goo goo ga ga land.
What is the point of having those values if when they are most needed, he doesn't espouse them.
He doesn't want to "poke the bear" you say. Hmm that sounds like giving the bear a free pass.
Now, none of this is a surprise or shocking. It is politics. What it does highlight, however, is the hypocrisy of Starmer, of Lab, and, I'm afraid, of you.
It may be it's easier when you speak the same language though Churchill had a view on that.
Badenoch and Farage would have been exactly the same.
*By the only proper and correct version of the seasons - The Met Office definition.
In my view yesterday was just a reflection that Starmer was the last person to have his ear and, because he'd been in a meeting with Starmer he hadn't been watching TV (probably watching Putin).
Thus he is convinced that Starmer is a 'good guy'. Credit to Starmer for doing his homework to say the right things to Trump to get this outcome. I suspect Zelenskyy will achieve the same today, but this will only last until his next call with Putin.
Trump really is that shallow and stupid.
Exactly, they have jumped into bed with said monster and literally slapped him on the back.
That is some seriously fucked up value projection there.
Sleep with dogs, get fleas.
Starmer's triumph, if that's what it was, will be short-lived however. Trump is just too capricious.
But as you say, 80 years ago now.
Starmer managed to avoid soiling himself. Good.
He said
- you are looking to divide us when we are not divided
- We didn’t discuss Canada
This need be nowhere near as damaging.
As of this day, for example, Canada is an independent state and there are no new Trump 2025 tariffs on it (though if you listen only to words you may think there are). Next week may be different.
Now I think that of course that is how politicians should act; the world is indeed one of pragmatism and realpolitik. But Lab, and its supporters have made a virtue of its values and how they are different and whatnot. When as we have seen, of course they aren't different at all.
If you, and all Lab supporters, can reconcile your views of Trump (which went beyond mere criticism and deemed him to be a tyrant) with your Party doing business with Trump and behaving in the way we saw Starmer behave, then that is one for you and your genies.
Whatever we may think of Trump, he is the US President. What he does with regards to US law and their constitution is their business, but we can do what we can to stop him doing bad things like breaking up NATO and crashing the global economy
Mitr Clinic, India’s first transgender clinic in Hyderabad, shuts down following USAID freeze
- [1] "Lighted" is an adjective vs "Lit" is a verb. So "she lit the candles and the stage was lighted".
- [2] Something that is producing light (or on fire) is "lit". So a torch is lit, a fireplace is lit, a marquee is lit. But something that has light shone upon it is "lighted". So a path is lighted, a stage is lighted.
- [3] There is no difference. Both are the past tense and past participle of the verb "light", but "lighted" was more popular in the past and "lit" is more popular now.
I was bought up with the first and second ones but the third one I think reflects popular usage.Now, shall we have a discussion on the difference between "hung" and "hanged"?
Notes
[1] https://grammarist.com/usage/lighted-lit/
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/11qmhuy/lighted_vs_lit/
[3] https://grammarist.com/usage/lighted-lit/
A pioneer in AI and autonomous drone technology, yes. But let's not forget the consistent bombing campaign against Yorkshire, the frequent imprisonment of competitors and their pets.
https://x.com/thomasforth/status/1895410304030478433
That fact alone does not tell me how to conduct relationships with Trump or others personally, or USA generally. In particular we are bound with them over decades in respect of NATO, integration, academia, industry, trade, AI, tech, intelligence and an infinity of other things.
Bed jumping and back slapping are metaphors, not charges. What would a properly moral Labour government do different? Let is take as given that it has to govern UK well, not trash the country, be sound on defence and protect difficult alliances for the sake of the future.
What are the charges?
I do think our recent governments have set a spectacularly low bar on moral hypocrisy, and those govts happen to have been Con ones, but that signifies little imv, except that Brexit has turned the Tory party temporarily insane.
That Starmer promised to raise that incredibly low bar does not preclude him doing the dirty politics thing to some extent when needed.
It is a sad state of affairs where politicians have to think about how they act in front of Trump rather than just have a grown up conversation in case he subsequently goes away and throws a tantrum.
Bloody unemployed immigrant knights coming here and making extinct, our fictional wildlife?
Bet there was a huge queue at the job centre for Proper British Knights after that.
Well, not everyone. But it does get depressing at times.
And I think it was wrong, especially in that context, not to mention Canada. I'm no monarchist, but the Canadians are Commonwealth citizens and we should stand beside them.
To be honest, this visit, coupled with the reduction in foreign aid, has lowered my opinion of Starmer. However, I'm willing to wait and see how the other European leaders react today.
Apparently Chagos was the worst deal in history and we were waiting for Trump to scupper it as he would see how terrible it is.
Now Trump is supporting the deal apparently we should never have gone to Trump at all.
Accept it, Starmer has once again, confounded everyone.
https://www.thepoke.com/2025/02/27/kelvin-mackenzie-counting-passengers-of-colour-on-the-london-underground/
Whereas ‘green-light’ with a hyphen and taking an object is mainly American so should be banned from PB except in an ironic sense, where ‘green-lighted’ would be the past thingy.
Who the hell are “Grammarist”?
Lighted can, however, be used to describe falling upon, or coming upon something unexpectedly.
The leaf lighted upon the ground.
I lighted upon a new solution.
Britain can't demand that the USA listens to us, and that is independent of whether their current President is a good guy or a baddie. But equally, Britain isn't an irrelevance to USA thinking. I think what follows from that is that the UK has to pick its demands and its balance of flattery and force carefully. It's not an easy situation, and it won't look that dignified.
Having said that, I suspect it's where SKS is comfortable and quite effective at operating.
pantstrousers off us on Countdown this week, unless Colin heads him off at the pass and directs him to luvvy stories about facing Lillee and Alderman's bowling or meeting Frank Sinatra.On the scorecard Starmer has played a blinder and I have to hand it to him (and Mandy) for reading the situation perfectly.
Probably, on balance, worth it. I assume you were talking about humanity's run on the earth which seems like it might be nearing its close.
Unfortunately, it's politics, baby, and Starmer has to do what PMs of smaller nations have to do when they meet The Donald.
This guy, though ... where were his parents ?
"By enlargely"
https://x.com/KnowYerPlace/status/1895377445186101703
I don't think either of them bombed, given the context but I'd prefer Starmer's (small) concrete wins over Macron's less stodgy delivery of not much.
Not as good as "I told you I was ill"
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/starmers-new-resolve-will-open-rifts-in-labour-8jmwccqpr
Starmer has found his voice. Tanks firmly parked on Labour’s lawn.
'We lit up those Viet Cong mofos!'
EDIT: We have numerous cases, now, of companies selling visas for non-existent jobs. If you consider how much people pay for a RIB ride across the channel - yes, worth more that. It's a big business, I think.
This is an astonishing video. Gaza should grab hold of the opportunity with both hands instead of using those same hands as a begging bowl to the world.
https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1894706426427371986