It appears the King sent a private note to Trump over his comments on Afghanistan and it prompted Trumps U turn
Look at what Trump said carefully. There is no U turn. No taking back of the detail in any respect of what he saud before. Just as there is no apology. The press have not covered this properly.
They've pretty much treated it like the apology it isn't.
On the merits he's already got a job as mayor so do your job.
On the politics it's constant Labour division process stories if he wins and rancour if he loses because he'll blame the other factions.
Just say no. Why would they say yes?
Because Starmer is disliked by lots of people, and those people have decided in various (probably contradictory) ways that Andy will give them the things that Keir has denied them.
There's also a bit of the argument for Boris in 2019; Andy/Boris going to keep causing trouble until he gets what he wants, so if we give it to him maybe we will get five minutes peace and quiet.
The wider (because it's a pattern) question is why we value really wanting the job (to the extent of causing trouble for the party) above likelihood to do the job well? Gordon, Boris, Liz, now Andy ..
Boris did win the Tories a majority in 2019 they wouldn't have got otherwise
Possibly the last one ever, though.
And given BoJo's role in creating the problems he promised to solve, he no more deserves our gratitude than Howard Kirk did.
He beat Corbyn, got Brexit done and delivered the vaccines
The Economist: America has coped with worse things than Donald Trump:
He is not the first president to treat critics as enemies of the state. In 1798, under John Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalised “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. More than a century later, during and after the first world war, Woodrow Wilson’s administration jailed and deported dissidents, censored the press and tolerated mob violence against those deemed “un-American”. In each case repression was described as lawful and necessary, in the name of security, order and patriotism—language heard again today.
Nor is this the first time that America has suffered an erosion of norms about how power is exercised and defeat is accepted. After the civil war Andrew Johnson blocked civil rights for freed slaves and undermined Reconstruction, for a while hollowing out democracy in the South. Watergate revealed how law-enforcement and intelligence agencies could be bent to partisan ends, and how democracy depends on officials and reporters who refuse to play along. In both cases decency ultimately survived because Americans chose to defend it.
And if America often feels as if it is on the brink—struggling to cope with a polarised public—it has been there before, too. The country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, proved too weak to hold the republic together, nearly leading to collapse. Its successor papered over slavery with compromise and euphemism, postponing a reckoning that would come through civil war. In the 1930s the Depression exposed a political system ill-equipped to deal with mass unemployment. More recently, an election decided by the Supreme Court in 2000 showed how heavily the system relies on good faith and restraint, qualities that are now in much shorter supply.
Hardly reassuring. Johnson is the obvious parallel to Trump, but the failures of Reconstruction represent a century long blot on US history (not that the Trump administration wants anyone to be able to learn about that history). Is the US going to have a century of pain after Trump too?
This won’t stop a leadership challenge to Starmer so blocking Burnham is shortsighted and an own goal.
Starmer looks weak and frightened to make a case for his leadership. I wasn’t a fan of Burnham but supported him being allowed to stand.
A rule is round the corner
I expect there will be a leadership challenge after the May elections. Streeting , Mahmood among the likely contenders when the PLP pull the plug on Starmer .
Andy Burnham is obviously intending to stir shit, and Labour don’t need the media distraction.
On balance, although this is an awful stitch up, I think it might be right decision.
Thought experiment:
Suppose Boris had been blackballed from the Conservative candidates' list. Not impossible, after all. Not with his reputation. Or suppose he hadn't been allowed to work his passage back by standing for Mayor of London in 2008.
Would the Conservative Party be in a better or worse place now?
Boris and Burnham both have ambitions- and a sense of entitlement- that goes beyond their actual talent.
(Go on. Apart from natty glasses, what skills or plans does Burnham bring to the table?)
'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said she initially joined the Conservatives for the "party aspect of it - socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Badenoch said that after university all her friends had "gone all over the world" and she thought joining the party would be "a fun thing to do".
She met her husband through her membership of the Conservatives and dedicated one of her record picks - Wet Wet Wet's Love is All Around - to him.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkrrknxe08o
Coincidentally Wet Wet Wet is Kemi going down the list of her shadow cabinet.
NEC voted to BLOCK Burnham from being on the Labour shortlist in Gorton by 8 to 1, only Powell in favour.
Civil war in Labour incoming? Reform must now fancy their chances if an all BAME shortlist imposed in Gorton instead
So there’s potential chaos in Iran, the Chinese regime looks close to imploding, the US is nudging towards a civil war, and Starmer decides the best thing to do is pick a fight with people in his own party…
'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said she initially joined the Conservatives for the "party aspect of it - socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people".
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Badenoch said that after university all her friends had "gone all over the world" and she thought joining the party would be "a fun thing to do".
She met her husband through her membership of the Conservatives and dedicated one of her record picks - Wet Wet Wet's Love is All Around - to him.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkrrknxe08o
Exotic travel, sea, sunshine and partying...or signing up with the Conservative Party? What a choice!
Brother-in-law joined the Young Conservatives specifically to meet a young lady. And did; they been married 50+ years.
Andy Burnham is obviously intending to stir shit, and Labour don’t need the media distraction.
On balance, although this is an awful stitch up, I think it might be right decision.
Thought experiment:
Suppose Boris had been blackballed from the Conservative candidates' list. Not impossible, after all. Not with his reputation. Or suppose he hadn't been allowed to work his passage back by standing for Mayor of London in 2008.
Would the Conservative Party be in a better or worse place now?
Boris and Burnham both have ambitions- and a sense of entitlement- that goes beyond their actual talent.
(Go on. Apart from natty glasses, what skills or plans does Burnham bring to the table?)
In that scenario Corbyn may well have become PM in 2019 in a hung parliament or at the least Brexit would never have got done and the Brexit party could well have overtaken the Tories even 7 years ago
How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it
I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.
They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!
Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.
Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...
I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.
Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".
Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.
As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.
I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.
I would not piss on him if he was on fire , totally unfunny and only equalled by Corden.
I'm thinking that the ABV of your urine might possibly make the fire worse?
This last week I have been in my bed ill, have very bad UTI , some horrible virus and on antibiotics etc so ABV = 0
You've kept posting though; well done. Best wishes for recovery.
Although, perchance, you've been a little more short-tempered than usual?
More generally, I think all parties need a better process to pick MP candidates. It seems like a weird mix of skullduggery, putting in hours knocking on doors and random luck with competence or ability very far down the list
Simon Hart makes the same point in his published diary of his time as Tory Chief Whip - with some pointed comments about some of his colleagues, Suella particularly, which deserve to be better known.
Party selection currently rests upon some mix of candidates' time-serving activity of having toiled away for the party, and conformance with the ideological peccadillos of the selection committee, which for the Tories has increasingly meant the ERG agenda. Ablity or competence doesn't really figure.
Of course, attempts to short-cut this with supposedly talent-based imposition of candidates from the centre, notably Cameron's A-list, had mixed success, bringing a few younger genuinely talented people into parliament along with a fair few oddballs and primadonnas.
Cameron's reliance on the old school tie was anachronistic. Not for nothing was his regime known as the chumocracy. He had also exploited the expenses scandal to get rid of a few timeservers.
Burnham must now surely be secretly hoping Reform or the Greens win the Gorton by election and Starmer and the NEC are humiliated
You might see him out canvassing. There's such a thing as swallowing disappointment and coming to the aid of the party.
If (doing a lot of work) he’s smart then he will do a couple of high profile interventions so he looks like he’s trying but the minimum amount of actual work.
If I was to game this from Andy’s perspective the best outcome is:
- Andy tries to stand - SKS blocks candidacy (looks frit) - Andy is studiously loyal (hah!) - Labour loses (“but Andy would have won”) - Labour outperforms in Manchester in the locals
Comments
NEW THREAD
Suppose Boris had been blackballed from the Conservative candidates' list. Not impossible, after all. Not with his reputation. Or suppose he hadn't been allowed to work his passage back by standing for Mayor of London in 2008.
Would the Conservative Party be in a better or worse place now?
Boris and Burnham both have ambitions- and a sense of entitlement- that goes beyond their actual talent.
(Go on. Apart from natty glasses, what skills or plans does Burnham bring to the table?)
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/1300_big.jpg
If I was to game this from Andy’s perspective the best outcome is:
- Andy tries to stand
- SKS blocks candidacy (looks frit)
- Andy is studiously loyal (hah!)
- Labour loses (“but Andy would have won”)
- Labour outperforms in Manchester in the locals