This header sums up Starmer's hypocrisy rather well.
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
I’ve been busy for the last few days so just catching up.
Starmer, Mandelson, Powell. Smashed it out of the park. Forget party politics at times like this, we need our elected leader and their team to deliver for Britain. And they did.
Trump likes tough negotiators - they negotiated hard. Trump likes people on his agenda - and we’d already announced the (inevitable so why not get kudos for it) step up in spending. And we blew smoke up the narcissistic old bastard’s chuff with a second state visit.
I can't go along fully with this. Of course we rolled out the red carpet with the second State visit - it would have been a profoundly foolish thing not too. And of course we didn't embarrass Trump by disagreeing with him publicly (though a far better form of words could and should have been found for poor old Canada).
What concerns me more is what we may have agreed to, at least in principle, all for the perverse purpose of getting Chagos over the line. Trump is a fool if he didn't know that the policy was controversial - Farage has been campaigning against it, and he would also know that Starmer was beholden to the policy to a peculiar degree. Though Trump did not offer a ringing endorsement of Chagos, clearly his failure to block it was a cornerstone of the visit from Labour's perspective - otherwise Lammy wouldn't have trailed the fact that the policy would be scrapped if Trump didn't agree. What we may have given Trump in exchange for not humiliating Starmer over Chagos, we could have given in exchange for a genuine policy gain. What we may have instead is a setback to pay for a setback.
I am also not clear, if this is a 'success', what would a failure look like? It seems that we have agreed that we will take part in securing what are now US mineral interests in Ukraine. The US has not said it will offer any component of this force. Is this a great outcome? Yes we didn't get bawled out and slapped with 25% tariffs, which is a blessing, but I am not sure what we actually gained.
The Chagos deal isn't a Labour Party bugbear where Starmer has squeezed support out of the US. Rather, it has always been driven by what the US wants and Labour continued negotiations started under the Tories.
This header sums up Starmer's hypocrisy rather well.
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
I'm broadly right of centre but mainly centrist in outlook. What used to annoy me about the left was the idea that only left wing politics was virtuous. That anything the left did was for the morally correct reasons. And the idea that the Tories were scum, uncaring, only in it for themselves etc.
When he says "Gaza should grab hold of the opportunity...", who does he means as "Gaza". The plan Trump mooted and Bibi is embracing is to ethnically cleanse Gaza of its current population. So, who is "Gaza" in Mackenzie's tweet? It's not the current population of Gaza. Is it the land and rocks and sand of Gaza?
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
That's Peter Navarro, a Trump aid in their attempts to overthrow the election in 2020 (he wrote a book about how he did it), who spent 4 months in jail in 2024 for Contempt of Congress (ie failed to answer a subpoena).
Just another one of the crims Trump has brought into Government.
He's not a lawyer. He speaks on Trade, not borders.
It's a piece from the Telegrunt aggregated by Yahoo.
That's Peter Navarro, a Trump aid in their attempts to overthrow the election in 2020 (he wrote a book about how he did it), who spent 4 months in jail in 2024 for Contempt of Congress (ie failed to answer a subpoena).
Just another one of the crims Trump has brought into Government.
He's not a lawyer.
No, but he has significant influence on Trump, so you can't just dismiss the dangerous nonsense as inconsequential.
This header sums up Starmer's hypocrisy rather well.
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
Does he actually think he's virtuous though, or is that just an impression to get people (lefties) to vote for him?
All the evidence suggests he's just utterly pragmatic (or cynical), and that's why he could vanquish Corbynism so easily and make the Trump visit a success.
When he says "Gaza should grab hold of the opportunity...", who does he means as "Gaza". The plan Trump mooted and Bibi is embracing is to ethnically cleanse Gaza of its current population. So, who is "Gaza" in Mackenzie's tweet? It's not the current population of Gaza. Is it the land and rocks and sand of Gaza?
Meanwhile, Israel is attacking Syria unprovoked in what looks like the beginnings of a further land grab. @BartholomewRoberts will probably have some justification for how this is OK.
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.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
Thanks. I think Lincoln is the great example of the successful politician who is semi-principled. Had he stuck unyieldingly, to his anti-slavery principles, like Thaddeus Stevens, he could never have been elected. Had he been wholly amoral, no one would remember him today. Frederick Douglass said it best:
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
This header sums up Starmer's hypocrisy rather well.
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
I'm broadly right of centre but mainly centrist in outlook. What used to annoy me about the left was the idea that only left wing politics was virtuous. That anything the left did was for the morally correct reasons. And the idea that the Tories were scum, uncaring, only in it for themselves etc.
The same applies the other way - self-righteous right wingers insistent that Labour are this that and the other.
My politics have become more radical in recent years, but the radical centre. I don't care if the solution that works is left or right. Political ideology is generally a Bad Thing. Used to wind me up good and proper in the Labour Party. Now as a LibDem I get to speak to people who are classic Liberals, old school social democrats, ex Labour, ex Tory and even the occasional ex Nat. Much better.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
This header sums up Starmer's hypocrisy rather well.
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
I'm broadly right of centre but mainly centrist in outlook. What used to annoy me about the left was the idea that only left wing politics was virtuous. That anything the left did was for the morally correct reasons. And the idea that the Tories were scum, uncaring, only in it for themselves etc.
The same applies the other way - self-righteous right wingers insistent that Labour are this that and the other.
My politics have become more radical in recent years, but the radical centre. I don't care if the solution that works is left or right. Political ideology is generally a Bad Thing. Used to wind me up good and proper in the Labour Party. Now as a LibDem I get to speak to people who are classic Liberals, old school social democrats, ex Labour, ex Tory and even the occasional ex Nat. Much better.
Yes I think the right tends to view the left as deluded as to human nature etc, too quick to believe tales of hardship and so on. Ideologies are not helpful.
That's Peter Navarro, a Trump aid in their attempts to overthrow the election in 2020 (he wrote a book about how he did it), who spent 4 months in jail in 2024 for Contempt of Congress (ie failed to answer a subpoena).
Just another one of the crims Trump has brought into Government.
He's not a lawyer.
No, but he has significant influence on Trump, so you can't just dismiss the dangerous nonsense as inconsequential.
Looking a bit further, he was also the guy behind the 25% tariff proposals on Mexico and Canada day 1, and the idea to expel Canada from Five Eyes.
I'm not saying it is not consequential, but pointing out the source.
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
I'm a progressive middle-class voter, but I'm not remotely tempted by the LibDems (all over the place without any uniting principles) or Greens (unrealistic). We're short of a serious left-wing alternative, partly due to the electoral system which makes it usually impractical.
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.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
Thanks. I think Lincoln is the great example of the successful politician who is semi-principled. Had he stuck unyieldingly, to his anti-slavery principles, like Thaddeus Stevens, he could never have been elected. Had he been wholly amoral, no one would remember him today. Frederick Douglass said it best:
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
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"?
And it's completely wrong. Lighted and Lit are both usable as the past tense and past participle of the verb "to light" AND both can be used as adjectives. Lit is the more contemporary usage and is to be preferred although lighted is not proscriptively deprecated.
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.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
Thanks. I think Lincoln is the great example of the successful politician who is semi-principled. Had he stuck unyieldingly, to his anti-slavery principles, like Thaddeus Stevens, he could never have been elected. Had he been wholly amoral, no one would remember him today. Frederick Douglass said it best:
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
I guess the proviso is that the semi-principled pol should be entirely aware of the times they have to ditch their principles, and the cost of that. Given the triumphalism from Lab and many of their supporters (bless, the poor lambs haven't had anything to be triumphalist over for a while), I'm not convinced that Starmer is.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
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"?
And it's completely wrong. Lighted and Lit are both usable as the past tense and past participle of the verb "to light" AND both can be used as adjectives. Lit is the more contemporary usage and is to be preferred although lighted is not proscriptively deprecated.
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.
I'm not a Momentum whisperer, but I'd say the lobby has fractured decisively.
Previously it was Corbynite True Believers, people wanting to ride the bandwagon to power, fellow travellers, and supporters (passive believers + sheep).
That has turned into people who practically support or tolerate Putin because it is anti-West, people who have examined things and turned for various reasons (eg Paul Mason), bandwagoneers who have boarded other bandwagons which they hope may get further, and other bits and pieces. Passive supporters are probably now in the changed Labour mainstream.
Novara Media seem to have changed somewhat, especially afaics Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar.
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
I'm a progressive middle-class voter, but I'm not remotely tempted by the LibDems (all over the place without any uniting principles) or Greens (unrealistic). We're short of a serious left-wing alternative, partly due to the electoral system which makes it usually impractical.
@NickPalmer , I still need your Bluesky account name.
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
I'm a progressive middle-class voter, but I'm not remotely tempted by the LibDems (all over the place without any uniting principles) or Greens (unrealistic). We're short of a serious left-wing alternative, partly due to the electoral system which makes it usually impractical.
Despite being a Labour Party member for a few months shy of 25 years I never felt that the party understood what it meant by the word "progressive". It did 2 things - provide smug reassurance that the Labour way was the Just way, and that the Tories were regressive.
What is progressive policy? The Tories do something and Labour attack it. Bad, wrong, not progressive. Labour in office do the same things - foreign aid, winter fuel, WASPI - and its progressive.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
Trump will have changed his mind by tomorrow, yet he still gets his State Visit. I have been paying my taxes for 40 years to the exchequer, I am not a hood, I am not a Putin shill, I am not an adjudicated rapist, I am not a convicted felon ( although I am on a speed awareness course in ten minutes) yet no one has offered me a State Visit. What am I doing wrong?
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
It should be obvious that the "love actually" moment is wrong, from the fact that it appears in "love actually".
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
Doing a "Love Actually" would be the same idea as Mike Amesbury punching that chap. Probably felt good to do at the time but the after effects are rather undesirable...
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
Blimey, you haven't had a shag for a while/ decades.
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"?
And it's completely wrong. Lighted and Lit are both usable as the past tense and past participle of the verb "to light" AND both can be used as adjectives. Lit is the more contemporary usage and is to be preferred although lighted is not proscriptively deprecated.
"Lighted" sounds wrong imo coming after "was".
I lighted my woodbine - ok I lit my woodbine - better (and benefits further from "up") My woodbine was by that point lit - yes (and "up" now doesn't work) My woodbine was already lighted - ???? no this doesn't do it for me
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
I might turn this into a Guardian think piece
I think you may be confusing your actual sexual experiences with those dreams you had about Daisy Duke when you were 14.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
It should be obvious that the "love actually" moment is wrong, from the fact that it appears in "love actually".
Yes, I know your feelings on that film are akin to kamski's on pyramids.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
Doing a "Love Actually" would be the same idea as Mike Amesbury punching that chap. Probably felt good to do at the time but the after effects are rather undesirable...
I know. Still, if Keir had walked over during the presser and kneed him in the balls I'd have tripled my Labour party subs with immediate effect.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
Blimey, you haven't had a shag for a while/ decades.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
Left-wing theatre managers who invited 200 migrants to a free show will abandon the building and face bankruptcy as refugees still refuse to leave after three months and spark wave of sex-related violence
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.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
Thanks. I think Lincoln is the great example of the successful politician who is semi-principled. Had he stuck unyieldingly, to his anti-slavery principles, like Thaddeus Stevens, he could never have been elected. Had he been wholly amoral, no one would remember him today. Frederick Douglass said it best:
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
Lincoln's genius was in having principles, but being pragmatic about getting the country to agree to meet him, before taking action.
His political manoeuvring, complete with a cabinet full of people who thought they could be (for should have been) president, is a master class in the art.
A proper good morning. Bright and sunny here, blue skies and 5C. A day for a walk around a National Trust property.
On the gains won by Mr Starmer, I think it's like the middle riddle in Bilbo Baggins via Gollum:
"Time, Time .. Give me Time - which was, of course, the answer."
My analogy is that the UK and US are like a couple married for 35 years, where one has most of the power - say a film star and a pre-career sweetheart - has demanded a divorce at 2 weeks notice. For now the spouse is still sharing the same house, but knows it will not last for long.
All the allies, but especially the UK who are most closely intertwined / dependent, need time to disentangle and to be able to in some way stand alone. That's simply what we need to manage possible scenarios.
So keeping sanctions for another year has much value, especially in preventing the USA from pivoting fully to the Russian side - which Trump is so capricious that he could do for any reason. It puts a short term set of guardrails on Trump's random walk.
When Trump is gone, the USA may pivot back to supporting democracy, and maybe even becoming one itself. That's the best outcome, but trust has been destroyed, and 75 years of accumulated influence has been burnt down, so it has all changed.
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.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
Thanks. I think Lincoln is the great example of the successful politician who is semi-principled. Had he stuck unyieldingly, to his anti-slavery principles, like Thaddeus Stevens, he could never have been elected. Had he been wholly amoral, no one would remember him today. Frederick Douglass said it best:
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
Lincoln's genius was in having principles, but being pragmatic about getting the country to agree to meet him, before taking action.
His political manoeuvring, complete with a cabinet full of people who thought they could be (for should have been) president, is a master class in the art.
Lincoln is the absolute greatest. As a politician, a statesman, a human being. I really don't think anyone else comes close.
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
I'm a progressive middle-class voter, but I'm not remotely tempted by the LibDems (all over the place without any uniting principles) or Greens (unrealistic). We're short of a serious left-wing alternative, partly due to the electoral system which makes it usually impractical.
We could do with a British Linke, but won't get one until we have some form of PR.
At the moment Starmer's Labour is the British SPD, still with a few heartlands but fading fast, propping up a Conservative agenda for fear of something worse.
I think it unlikely that I will vote Labour again, even though I was once a party member. 2001 was the last time.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
Doing a "Love Actually" would be the same idea as Mike Amesbury punching that chap. Probably felt good to do at the time but the after effects are rather undesirable...
I know. Still, if Keir had walked over during the presser and kneed him in the balls I'd have tripled my Labour party subs with immediate effect.
I rarely disagree with you, but I do on this. I share your contempt for Trump, and I suspect Starmer does as well. But strategically, both in terms of international relations and winning the next GE (a secondary factor), I think that Starmer had little choice but to do what he did, and he did it rather well. "All the world's a stage......." etc.
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 this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
Meanwhile the police have time to visit people who post bad words on social media, but not to investigate if your car is stolen. Priorities, hey.
And the MP who actually punched a voter to the ground gets a suspended sentence - as Facebook commenters get 3 years in jail
It is all so fucked up
Most abusive social media commentators also got suspended or community sentences but the Public Order Act was ironically introduced under Thatcher just the police and judges now expand interpretation of it
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"?
Making a deal with Trump is pointless... he will just use it to shake you down and humiliate you. All trump wants is to sleep in Buckingham palace and have KC3 kiss his arse. As soon as that is done he will turn on Starmer and throw the UK under a bus ... it doesn't matter what he says right now.
I guess Starmer can frustrate reform domestically for a little while by having trump say nice things about him and ignore farage. That will perplex the goosestepping morons way out on the right. But ultimately this is not the direction Britain wants to go. America's economy is about to nosedive anyway.
Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting to select the strains of flu to be included in next season’s vaccines.
Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting to select the strains of flu to be included in next season’s vaccines.
First measles death in a decade in the US the other day.
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
It's like anything Royal, a bit of harmless frippery, but if it gains some favour then go for it.
After all there have been State visits for Xi, Putin, Ceauscesu and any number of other dictators.
Last few have been
Qatari Sheikh - dodgy human rights record Japanese Emperor - nothing comes up suggesting a wrong un S Korea - Yoon Suk-Yeol - Impeached S Africa - Ramaphosa - Full of dodgy scandals Trump - Impeached, dodgy
Equating a state visit with good moral standing makes no objective sense.
Liberal Democrats scrape home in Woodbridge by election:
LD 1023 Con 391 RefUK 274 Lab 219
The winner is also the county councillor for this area.
To be fair, the Greens and LDs run a joint administration - the LDs didn't contest the Rushmere St Andrews by election and the Greens didn't contest Woodbridge so the joint administration survives with a one seat majority.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
I might turn this into a Guardian think piece
In the end, 'nice while you were doing it' is all we've got. Maybe that'll be my epitaph.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
I might turn this into a Guardian think piece
Tiny denim shorts and ankle chains - classy.
Leon's fashion choices are his own affair.
Guardian to commission a "This is how we do it ..." piece from Leon seems like a near certainty.
Anneliese Dodds resigns as international development minister over aid cuts. Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
Maybe outsourcing operations to the lowest bidder has problems.
Да
I was doing contract work at Douche Bank in 2013-2014.
I told several people that having development done in St Petersburg meant that they were exposing operations to Russian organised crime via the Russian State.
They were laughing on the other side of their mouths when the first Ukraine comedy kicked off. And the QA team in Ukraine said that they would never pass the code from Russia. They were running around in the bank, trying to find out if the *source code* was in Russia - and if the Americans pulled the plug...
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
Meanwhile the police have time to visit people who post bad words on social media, but not to investigate if your car is stolen. Priorities, hey.
And the MP who actually punched a voter to the ground gets a suspended sentence - as Facebook commenters get 3 years in jail
It is all so fucked up
Homophobia is a Bad Thing. My dad's petty pointless homophobia was a key driver in my bisexuality staying firmly in the closet. Should we be punishing people who are attacking people for their sexuality? Absolutely.
But. Is it homophobic abuse if he's shouting "rent boys" at straight people who aren't going to feel that their (hetrosexual) sexuality is being attacked...?
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
Meanwhile the police have time to visit people who post bad words on social media, but not to investigate if your car is stolen. Priorities, hey.
That one seems to be an exemplary response. The punishment was a 3-year banning order, and the perpetrator has turned his coat and is working on the positive side.
Steve was leaving the football ground when he shouted back at some away fans. Moments later he was in handcuffs and under arrest.
He had shouted a homophobic slur, committing a hate crime that led to him being charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence. The case ended up in court, where he pleaded guilty, and he was banned from attending football matches in the UK for three years.
Now Steve - not his real name as he fears for the impact on his professional and personal life - is trying to make amends after coming through a fan education programme run by anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out. ... "I accept that [what I did] was awful, and now it's about repaying that, turning that into something positive. I've had a look at myself... I'm willing to make amends," he said.
"People are going to make mistakes, but you're judged on how you then move forward."
He said the session had changed him "massively".
"It's made me aware of how there's a fine line between what's considered banter and just abuse."
President Trump will be the first US President to have 2 state visits to the UK after Starmer's decision to ask the King to invite him again yesterday.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
It's like anything Royal, a bit of harmless frippery, but if it gains some favour then go for it.
After all there have been State visits for Xi, Putin, Ceauscesu and any number of other dictators.
Last few have been
Qatari Sheikh - dodgy human rights record Japanese Emperor - nothing comes up suggesting a wrong un S Korea - Yoon Suk-Yeol - Impeached S Africa - Ramaphosa - Full of dodgy scandals Trump - Impeached, dodgy
Equating a state visit with good moral standing makes no objective sense.
In the warm up for the actual ceremonies, the Welsh Guards band played the Imperial March from Star Wars, before the Saudi King's visit.
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.
Basically yeah
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
I might turn this into a Guardian think piece
In the end, 'nice while you were doing it' is all we've got. Maybe that'll be my epitaph.
My mother once described me as "a lover, not a fighter". It has stuck with me and I shall be proud to have it as my epitaph.
Anneliese Dodds resigns as international development minister over aid cuts. Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
Anneliese Dodds resigns as international development minister over aid cuts. Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
I guess if your department budget is effectively cut in half overnight, it's a not unreasonable thing to do. Good for her.
Interesting how this has dropped on PB. The usual template is thrown out because reaction depends on (i) feelings about SKS, (ii) feelings about Donald Trump, (iii) what you think the visit achieved, (iv) your tolerance for excruciating spectacle on tv. For me it's (i) I like him, (ii) I hate him, (iii) no idea, (iv) low. So basically I'd say it went well, from Starmer's pov, but it was my idea of a horror show.
It was horrific. I am not sure I could ever forgive Starmer. Anyway Kemi Badenoch has tweeted today that any success is down to her, which makes me hate the visit even more.
Felt wrong. I know the "love actually" moment is a fantasy but I would like to see an end to the public fawning. The short term gains (assuming there are any) will imo be outweighed over time by the fact it only encourages him.
It should be obvious that the "love actually" moment is wrong, from the fact that it appears in "love actually".
Yes, I know your feelings on that film are akin to kamski's on pyramids.
Love Actually is the most vomit-inducingly kitsch waste of space since the Great Pyramid of Giza
Anneliese Dodds resigns as international development minister over aid cuts. Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
Lest we forget she was Sir Keir’s first choice to be Chancellor until she proved herself utterly useless as Shadow Chancellor.
Anneliese Dodds resigns as international development minister over aid cuts. Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
Quite understandable.
Is that the first 'resignation on principle'? And, IIRC, that makes two losses by the cabinet' one resignation, one sacking.
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.
I'm not a Momentum whisperer, but I'd say the lobby has fractured decisively.
Previously it was Corbynite True Believers, people wanting to ride the bandwagon to power, fellow travellers, and supporters (passive believers + sheep).
That has turned into people who practically support or tolerate Putin because it is anti-West, people who have examined things and turned for various reasons (eg Paul Mason), bandwagoneers who have boarded other bandwagons which they hope may get further, and other bits and pieces. Passive supporters are probably now in the changed Labour mainstream.
Novara Media seem to have changed somewhat, especially afaics Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar.
Having inspected the polls Ash Sarkar has abandoned woke, embraced anti-woke, and in her languid search for an alternative seems to have alighted on class. Which is fine on a come-to-Jesus basis but FOR SOMEBODY WHO CLAIMS TO BE AN ACTUAL COMMUNIST is preternaturally dumb.
So this chap gets arrested and charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence for shouting 'Oi, you Chelsea rent boys'*. Where do people stand on this? Is this different from shouting ' 'Oi, you Chelsea wankers', 'Oi, you Chelsea twats' or any other of a range of not that offensive slurs?
Meanwhile the police have time to visit people who post bad words on social media, but not to investigate if your car is stolen. Priorities, hey.
And the MP who actually punched a voter to the ground gets a suspended sentence - as Facebook commenters get 3 years in jail
It is all so fucked up
Homophobia is a Bad Thing. My dad's petty pointless homophobia was a key driver in my bisexuality staying firmly in the closet. Should we be punishing people who are attacking people for their sexuality? Absolutely.
But. Is it homophobic abuse if he's shouting "rent boys" at straight people who aren't going to feel that their (hetrosexual) sexuality is being attacked...?
I don't think you can presume the Chelsea fans were straight.
Comments
Similar tweets and statements from Starmer can be identified on the Winter Fuel Allowance, Foreign Aid cuts, WASPI women, the PM (Sunak at the time) taking what SKS perceived to be unnecessary flights, failing to declare donations, and so on.
I don't actually dramatically disagree with Starmer's actions when he reduces WFA and Foreign Aid, refuses to compensate the WASPI women and goes on lots of foreign trips - all necessary measures. But did he have to be so achingly sanctimonious when he thought others were doing it?
Likewise, I didn't see what the big deal was about the Lord Alli donations - mainly I was very glad that someone else's money had been wasted on needlessly expensive clothes and accessories, rather than my own - but we can be sure that if a PM of a different party had done it that Starmer would have been among the first to pass judgement on such moral failings.
Boris Johnson's arrogance was that knew he was a scoundrel, but wrongly assumed that he could always get away with it.
Starmer's arrogance is of a different sort; he seems to think that anything he does is virtuous because he is the one doing it, but is excessively sanctimonious when his opponents to do exactly the same thing. Most politicians are like this to an extent, but I am not sure I have ever seen it done with such an air of assumed moral superiority before.
This all drives me a little bonkers, but in truth it has very little consequence regarding the running of the government and will not be a defining issue in the next general election, even for me.
On-topic, I agree with the overall consensus that Starmer is thankfully getting on well with Trump, with similar scenes to that of Trump's first visit from Theresa May.
Just another one of the crims Trump has brought into Government.
He's not a lawyer. He speaks on Trade, not borders.
It's a piece from the Telegrunt aggregated by Yahoo.
All the evidence suggests he's just utterly pragmatic (or cynical), and that's why he could vanquish Corbynism so easily and make the Trump visit a success.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/feb/28/planetary-parade-visible-february-28-how-to-see-planets-aligned
Shortly after sunset, to the west.
“From the genuine abolition view, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent, but measuring him by the sentiment of his country – a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined.”
My politics have become more radical in recent years, but the radical centre. I don't care if the solution that works is left or right. Political ideology is generally a Bad Thing. Used to wind me up good and proper in the Labour Party. Now as a LibDem I get to speak to people who are classic Liberals, old school social democrats, ex Labour, ex Tory and even the occasional ex Nat. Much better.
I'm not saying it is not consequential, but pointing out the source.
Previously it was Corbynite True Believers, people wanting to ride the bandwagon to power, fellow travellers, and supporters (passive believers + sheep).
That has turned into people who practically support or tolerate Putin because it is anti-West, people who have examined things and turned for various reasons (eg Paul Mason), bandwagoneers who have boarded other bandwagons which they hope may get further, and other bits and pieces. Passive supporters are probably now in the changed Labour mainstream.
Novara Media seem to have changed somewhat, especially afaics Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar.
What is progressive policy? The Tories do something and Labour attack it. Bad, wrong, not progressive. Labour in office do the same things - foreign aid, winter fuel, WASPI - and its progressive.
All that huffing and strutting. And in the end - pffff!
It’s like tuppping lots and lots of women. In the end does it even matter? You can’t remember them all. It was nice while you were doing it. But they tend to blur, even the really hot ones in tiny denim shorts with those ankle chains
I might turn this into a Guardian think piece
Con 377
Green 373
RefUK 347
Lab 166
Con 29.8% (-17.0)
Green 29.5% (+8.9)
RefUK 27.5% ( new)
Lab 13.1% (-19.5)
https://x.com/chrisw100/status/1895415379935232465
Previous result in 2023: Con 582; Lab 405; Grn 256
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19309/local-council-elections-27th-february
I lighted my woodbine - ok
I lit my woodbine - better (and benefits further from "up")
My woodbine was by that point lit - yes (and "up" now doesn't work)
My woodbine was already lighted - ???? no this doesn't do it for me
Left-wing theatre managers who invited 200 migrants to a free show will abandon the building and face bankruptcy as refugees still refuse to leave after three months and spark wave of sex-related violence
What the US media made of Starmer's visit. Tldr; they couldn't give two shits.
His political manoeuvring, complete with a cabinet full of people who thought they could be (for should have been) president, is a master class in the art.
Four banks have confirmed disruption for customers on Friday morning.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/money/online-banking-issues-hit-customers-on-payday-for-second-month-in-a-row-b1213871.html
Nationwide, First Direct, Lloyds and Halifax .
On the gains won by Mr Starmer, I think it's like the middle riddle in Bilbo Baggins via Gollum:
"Time, Time .. Give me Time - which was, of course, the answer."
My analogy is that the UK and US are like a couple married for 35 years, where one has most of the power - say a film star and a pre-career sweetheart - has demanded a divorce at 2 weeks notice. For now the spouse is still sharing the same house, but knows it will not last for long.
All the allies, but especially the UK who are most closely intertwined / dependent, need time to disentangle and to be able to in some way stand alone. That's simply what we need to manage possible scenarios.
So keeping sanctions for another year has much value, especially in preventing the USA from pivoting fully to the Russian side - which Trump is so capricious that he could do for any reason. It puts a short term set of guardrails on Trump's random walk.
When Trump is gone, the USA may pivot back to supporting democracy, and maybe even becoming one itself. That's the best outcome, but trust has been destroyed, and 75 years of accumulated influence has been burnt down, so it has all changed.
At the moment Starmer's Labour is the British SPD, still with a few heartlands but fading fast, propping up a Conservative agenda for fear of something worse.
I think it unlikely that I will vote Labour again, even though I was once a party member. 2001 was the last time.
Maybe outsourcing operations to the lowest bidder has problems.
Indeed apart from Trump only Bush and Obama have had even 1 formal state visit, other Presidents visited but not officially as state visits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_visits_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_Ireland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1kjjw3rdd8o
Meanwhile the police have time to visit people who post bad words on social media, but not to investigate if your car is stolen. Priorities, hey.
C
A
S
H
It is all so fucked up
After all there have been State visits for Xi, Putin, Ceauscesu and any number of other dictators.
*excitement builds*
LD 1023
Con 391
RefUK 274
Lab 219
The intention is to convey mental illumination
I guess Starmer can frustrate reform domestically for a little while by having trump say nice things about him and ignore farage. That will perplex the goosestepping morons way out on the right. But ultimately this is not the direction Britain wants to go. America's economy is about to nosedive anyway.
Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting to select the strains of flu to be included in next season’s vaccines.
(I hate trains
Qatari Sheikh - dodgy human rights record
Japanese Emperor - nothing comes up suggesting a wrong un
S Korea - Yoon Suk-Yeol - Impeached
S Africa - Ramaphosa - Full of dodgy scandals
Trump - Impeached, dodgy
Equating a state visit with good moral standing makes no objective sense.
Remarkably principled to do so, particularly so early into a government. She might have hoped for higher office in time.
Trying to work out if the BBC live feed is taking the piss saying there's a red flag due to a bus on the track.
I told several people that having development done in St Petersburg meant that they were exposing operations to Russian organised crime via the Russian State.
They were laughing on the other side of their mouths when the first Ukraine comedy kicked off. And the QA team in Ukraine said that they would never pass the code from Russia. They were running around in the bank, trying to find out if the *source code* was in Russia - and if the Americans pulled the plug...
But. Is it homophobic abuse if he's shouting "rent boys" at straight people who aren't going to feel that their (hetrosexual) sexuality is being attacked...?
Steve was leaving the football ground when he shouted back at some away fans. Moments later he was in handcuffs and under arrest.
He had shouted a homophobic slur, committing a hate crime that led to him being charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence. The case ended up in court, where he pleaded guilty, and he was banned from attending football matches in the UK for three years.
Now Steve - not his real name as he fears for the impact on his professional and personal life - is trying to make amends after coming through a fan education programme run by anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out.
...
"I accept that [what I did] was awful, and now it's about repaying that, turning that into something positive. I've had a look at myself... I'm willing to make amends," he said.
"People are going to make mistakes, but you're judged on how you then move forward."
He said the session had changed him "massively".
"It's made me aware of how there's a fine line between what's considered banter and just abuse."
I'm Johnny Contactless.
Good for her.
Is that the first 'resignation on principle'? And, IIRC, that makes two losses by the cabinet' one resignation, one sacking.