Would Labour had an even bigger majority without this front page and strategy by the SNP?

OldKingCole said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.

I see the obvious response to this has already been given.

An independent California in reality would be very problematic, given major US military resources in the state including one of its largest naval bases. A bit like the Russian base at Sevastopol in Crimea, I suppose.

Texas succession is another problem given its stranglehold on the oil and gas industry and several strategic ports, but I suppose that’s more like Scotland vis a vis RUK.

Doesn't a State wishing to secede have to gain significant support from the other States? Seem to recall reading that something like that was enacted after the Civil War.

The other states would asset strip it to buggery.

Ask Boris Johnson what happened when he 'seceded'.

Or any other US citizen who has never been there, but still has to do a tax return every year.

tlg86 said:

How long before Dawn French issues a grovelling apology?

https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779

I watched it and didn't understand it.

StillWaters said:

I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:

The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”

* that’s how long my book pile is…

I am probably as a software engineer thought of as middle class, I can't afford a mortgage, a car is too costly to run, I don't have a wig and wouldn't take it for a donner and a show even if I did. I am not satisfied. Nor are most supposedly middle class I know in the same situation....guess civil war in 3...2....1

Mexicanpete said:

maxh said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.

Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary

"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"

Yes. Several times. Hillary's.

They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.

Can't fault them based on my experience.

How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?

I am genuinely clueless on this

Have you considered asking ChatGPT?

Am I allowed to answer this?

Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible

HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here

PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.

I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.

But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.

Not his best hijack.

Nonetheless successful. And also useful

And it slightly annoyed you and @Foxy

So that’s a win win

carnforth said:

rcs1000 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.

They send someone round.

The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.

That's one option.

Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.

I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed

John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything

Entire gaff is getting pepped

I hear Lulu Lytle is very good.

I prefer Lululemon.

More for boriswives than Boris himself though. I hope.

Now that's an image I didn't want in my head...

StillWaters said:

I’ve just been reading Lee Iacocca’s autobiography* and there was a comment in it that really resonated with me:

The mass media tends to focus on the very rich and the very poor, but it’s the middle class that gives us stability and keeps the economy rolling. As long as a guy is making enough money to meet his mortgage payments, eat fairly well, drive a car, send his kid to college, and go out with his wig once a week for donner and a show, he’s satisfied. And if the middle class is content, we’lLet’s never have a civil war or a revolution”

* that’s how long my book pile is…

Wig and a donner, the American dream.

I'm in shock.

It says here that my local East Midlands Mainline station has been made accessible, with a footbridge and lifts.

Since 1994 when the barrow crossing was removed, crossing from platform 1 to platform 2 with a wheelchair has been "catch a train to Nottingham / Chesterfield (depending on 1->2 or 2->1), use their lift, get another train back." That takes 60-90 minutes. It meant I could never use it to take mum anywhere at the end.

There have been at least 4 cycles of "money allocated, yes we will do it" that have never happened. And it says it only cost £6.75m.

I've had to cancel my evening walk to go and have a look. I'll post a piccie to seek views if it as ugly as everything else Network Rail do.

Now we need to deal with the mobility scooter ban on some parts of our rail system, and the wheelchair spaces that are too small for about 1/4 of wheel chairs in brand new trains, and the cycle storage that requires cycles to be hung off a hook on the wall at head height which are always obstructed by suitcases and are more difficult for women, John Bercow and BobbyJ and useless if you have lugggae on the bikes, and ....

https://alfreton.spiritof.uk/alfreton-train-station-completes-step-free-accessibility-upgrades/

Pagan2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Pagan2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer

You're wandering off point.

At least I have one

That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....

I am at least someone not arguing we should subvert even the little democracy we have by suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that violate Kinablu's sensibilities

Whoosh!

Sorry your sense of humour seems to have eluded me but then I never got a lot of left wing comics who seemed to have a sense of humour in the same way as tigers have a sense of veganism.

Alexei Sayle was funny....ben elton, russel brand, and jo brand etc were almost as funny as having your dangling gonads crushed by a couple of have bricks

For reference I don't find right wing comics any better on the whole.

Both sides seems to come down to trying to score points off the other side rather than actually being funny and both sides only appeal to their political demographic

@ABC

EXCLUSIVE: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, is on his way back to the U.S. to face criminal charges, sources tell ABC News

https://x.com/ABC/status/1931065257289478396

MattW said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Have you see this week's Newstatesman?

Cover story:

As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis

There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.

And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.

Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.

That sounds like an excerpt from the Knobbers' Gazette.

There we have a new policy for starmer, subsidies to install bunk beds in london to double occupancy....emailing it to Mistress Reeves as we speak

Oh. What a surprise!

Fucking massive lol. I literally predicted this only four days ago:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-wants-more-uk-money-to-intercept-small-boats-h3nv5287d

The health budget, which stood at £178 billion as Labour took office, will exceed £230 billion by the next election.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-spending-review-nhs-8wxtp8b7p

Casino_Royale said:

The health budget, which stood at £178 billion as Labour took office, will exceed £230 billion by the next election.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-spending-review-nhs-8wxtp8b7p

Give every Briton Mounjaro injections for life

We are basically all overweight, or obese, the savings would be enormous - and would save the NHS, and would far outweigh (yes yes) the costs

Casino_Royale said:

Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?

So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?

Despite the 75% Chinese ethnic majority, the English language is spoken at home by nearly 50% of Singaporeans.

Casino_Royale said:

Isn't the thing with Singapore that the voting is somewhat ethnocentric?

So Singapore Chinese (a clear majority ) almost always vote PAP?

OK this site needs pepping up

What happens if White British people start voting like ethnic Chinese in Singapore? ie on racial and sectarian grounds?

I suggest this is not just possible, it is probable bordering on certain, as the multicultural state sinks under its own failings and contradictions ("no we don't have a blasphemy law, no we don't, we really don't, OK we do, but only for Islam")

That's going to be an unpleasantly polarised county, but it may be inevitable. Cf the second victory of Donald J Trump. He won because he got the White vote

Casino_Royale said:

Oh. What a surprise!

Fucking massive lol. I literally predicted this only four days ago:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-wants-more-uk-money-to-intercept-small-boats-h3nv5287d

I'm idly wondering - and idly suggesting a modest proposal - would it be cheaper to pay a load of brits to just camp out on the French beaches to block people using them for nefarious purposes. Just wall-to-wall Brits complaining about the weird foreign food. Towels. Tents. All paid for by Westminster.

Now that Brave Sir-Keir has almost sort of kind of got a deal to allow the youngsters to visit mainland Europe once in a while - he could pay them to just fanny about on the beaches. Earnest socialist students debating with earnest libertarian students. Poetry circles. Mad chemsex circles. Whatever.

If it was even £1 cheaper - it seems like a decent trade.

tlg86 said:

How long before Dawn French issues a grovelling apology?

https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779

Is there some context? It just seems to be babbling and then saying 'No'?

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1931072793161900331

This from the Home Office is what my recent blog predicted - link next tweet - and under this sort of thing I'll shortly find myself referred to Prevent for extremism - while the police facilitate marches for a second Holocaust by people waving Hitler photos every week in London.
Our regime's behaviour is increasingly indistinguishable from an entity trying to provoke racial violence. It's extremely sad & worrying but the majority in Parliament is for continuing the madness

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

What are the ratings like? I can't imagine enough people watch it anymore for it to affect voting intentions.

Haven't watched it in years, but then I don't watch the BBC or have a TV Licence.

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.

We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Have I got establishment views for you.

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

It was an interesting question so thanks also. I still don't think it'll have the same electoral impact because adherents of Militant Islam are small in number (although maybe not in impact) and they don't make up an important caucus of one of only two viable political parties.

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Maybe it requires a theory of mind, to understand that some people in this country (roughly half of them) are not right wing, and don’t see the world as right wing people do.

Theory of mind: Inability to grasp that public policy making is not just private conduct writ large. That's probably a third of it. Policies are not just a menu from which you pick the stuff which sounds compassionate.

(Same criticism applies to the right, substituting something else for "compassionate".)

TimS said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Maybe it requires a theory of mind, to understand that some people in this country (roughly half of them) are not right wing, and don’t see the world as right wing people do.

No, it's just that Hislop is a dickhead and should have been pensioned off years ago. Ordinary people were and are on Jenrick's side wrt low level crime and they're mostly glad that he did something to highlight how ridiculous it's become. That he's a target for the BBC shows how out of touch they are. I guess it gets them a couple of laughs from the people in the audience who love the smell of their own farts...

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

If 90% want lower taxes, and 90% want more spent on public services, should both wishes be granted?

Yes, why not? Easily done if you shift the balance of taxation a bit more onto the shoulders of tax evaders - including those for whom the last Tory government changed the rules and created loopholes, so that they became tax avoiders instead of tax evaders.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

If 90% want lower taxes, and 90% want more spent on public services, should both wishes be granted?

The inconsistency arises because the "what do you want" question was incomplete. Tax and spending have to be considered together

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.

We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.

Jeez, you're even more pessimistic than me!

What you outline could easily happen. What makes it worse is that the "progressive" side will increasingly police speech and activism to suppress any dissent from their failing orthodoxy. This is clearly happening, already. "Two Tier Kier" is a very viral meme because it is obviously true

Grim

I don't think it comes down to race or skin colour. I think it will come down to values. In the end this country and many European ones will have to make the choice to accept or reject Islamic values and culture, I think the majority in this country probably reject it but may not be united enough to actually smash that rejection through parliament and the establishment to ensure free speech, action against criminal gangs associated with Muslims etc...

I don't ever see that happening under Labour but the Tories and Reform may end up cancelling each other out in 2029 and then by 2034 it will be really very difficult to roll back the creeping influence of Islam in the UK.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.

We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.

Sorry but there is zero evidence for any of that. For a start, the Lib Dem vote is overwhelmingly white middle class so have nothing in common philosophically or electorally with Islamists. Secondly, Muslims don't vote in a bloc and at the last election many voted for independent candidates. I have no idea what you mean by 'progressive blacks' but a black woman is currently leader of the Conservative Party.

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

Then why not mock Sadiq Khan who let it get this bad? Oh right, he's not right wing and it makes them feel uncomfortable.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.

Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.

Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?

If you wanted to be sexist, surely DIY (or not) conversations are fitting for Dadsnet?

Does your SWMBO have a view on this question?

If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

I think @MaxPB's point is that

1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)

2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)

3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why

It is pathetic. Kill it off

Don't fret. When the beeb aren't showing HIGNFY, Dr Who or Strictly then they are showing an interview or appearance from Farage who will destroy them if elected as PM.

Stereodog said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

Hmm, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than this. White liberals, progressive blacks and Muslims will form an uneasy "progressive" alliance vs the rest of the country and over time the Muslim part of that "progressive" coalition will consume the other two until it becomes an outright pro-Islamic party that the others fear but won't leave because they don't want to be seen as racist.

We just have to hope that there are enough of the rest to outvote that shit show but it requires us to unite the right and working classes so a motley crew of Lib Dems, greens and Labour liberals don't start driving us towards Islamic style laws.

Sorry but there is zero evidence for any of that. For a start, the Lib Dem vote is overwhelmingly white middle class so have nothing in common philosophically or electorally with Islamists. Secondly, Muslims don't vote in a bloc and at the last election many voted for independent candidates. I have no idea what you mean by 'progressive blacks' but a black woman is currently leader of the Conservative Party.

Liberal white guilt ridden middle classes whose worst nightmare is being seen as racist.

We've disagreed on this subject previously, I don't see any mileage in having the same conversation again. I'm not going to change your view and you won't change mine.

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

I think @MaxPB's point is that

1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)

2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)

3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why

It is pathetic. Kill it off

Is that true? I don't watch it unless a clip comes up on my phone.

If you're watching every single episode then fair enough.

Gallowgate said:

If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…

It would unite the right with the white working class vote very quickly, a very Trumpian coalition. Even in the US the only area where Trump still has wide support is immigration and the deportation programme. If anything the criticism from both blue collar whites and the right wing is that it hasn't been fast enough and the deportation rules should be made broader to allow for more illegals to be removed.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?

How about 'not living in somebody else's theocracy'?

Gallowgate said:

If there was ever a Sharia type party in the UK that gained serious ground I can imagine voting intention in England shifting on sectarian grounds, especially under FPTP…

In the novel Submission the French elite give in and become Muslims to avoid civil war.

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

I don’t like Eastenders but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about it

If we didn't pay for the BBC via a tax, AKA the TV licence, then you'd have a point

However we do, so you don't

And I am a supporter of the BBC, I think it is a genuine and salutary example of British soft power: it is remarkable how many non Brits associate the UK with the BBC - in a good way. I meet them all the time on my travels. Indeed "the BBC" is probably the third major aspect of "Britishness" that positively and palpably impinges on the world - alongside British sports (esp the EPL), and British music

But the BBC really needs to spruce its comedy output, and make some stuff that tackles the Left, Islam, Wokeness, etc. Man up!

I pay the licence fee but I don’t spend my Friday nights bitching about the programmes I don’t like

solarflare said:

HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.

That and also I think Merton got lazy, quitting the show for a series at one point before getting lured back. His surreal riffs of the 90s were part of what made the show, and he hasn't done any good ones in decades.

Fishing said:

solarflare said:

HIGNFY's problem was going with the guest presenters post-Deayton. Even if they'd only done that for a couple of years as a short-term stop-gap/experiment, they really should have found a new permanent host, as the peak era of the show was founded on the chemistry of Merton/Hislop ribbing Deayton as much as it was actually about the satire of the news and the jokes of the guests.

That and also I think Merton got lazy, quitting the show for a series at one point before getting lured back. His surreal riffs of the 90s were part of what made the show, and he hasn't done any good ones in decades.

Grumpy old men think everything was better in the “good old days”. In other news the Pope is catholic

nico67 said:

kinabalu said:

That has to be the highest quality straight sets tennis match ever.

Djokovic played really well and was so close to getting that third set . I find Sinner very robotic and just can’t really warm to him . I accept he’s a great player but hope Alcaraz wins on Sunday .

It should be an epic final. Alcaraz usually beats Sinner but I marginally favour Sinner this time. I agree Alcaraz is the more artistic player.

Satire is more dead than a Norwegian Blue latest:


Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump

“Fun projects”

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1931062986774634654

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

I think @MaxPB's point is that

1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)

2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)

3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why

It is pathetic. Kill it off

HIGNFY was brilliant for the first 10 or 15 years with Deayton presenting, mainly because he mocked everyone regardless of whether they were left or right.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Stereodog said:

Leon said:

Some data to chew over:


2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump secured 57% of the White vote, while Kamala Harris received 42%

White Men: Trump garnered 60%

White Women: Trump received 53%

White Voters Without a College Degree: Trump 66%

White Voters With a College Degree: Trump obtained 45%


Trump won twice - and, I suspect, could easily win again if allowed - because he won the White vote, which is caucusing on racial grounds, as the Dems are seen as the party of everyone else

Why should Britain avoid this fate? Answers welcome

Because despite many people trying to argue the contrary, we don't have a large block of non white voters with a shared cultural experience of slavery which causes them to have different priorities to the white population. Our immigrant communities are from diverse backgrounds with different voting patterns. For example, Hindus and Cantonese are as much Tory inclined as the white population.

At least you essayed an answer, and for that, thanks

I suggest Britain's racial divide is easily as bad, because - while we do not have the anxious and terrible legacy of slavery on our own soil - we have imported a brand of militant Islam - which America has not

So I predict we will see Britons voting, increasingly, on polarised racial grounds, and Whites will also do this - for the first time

So what is this common White interest that Whites are going to coalesce around?

Remaining in charge and protecting their privileges.

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

I switched on HIGNFY for three minutes on the Jenrick section and this is why liberals are losing in this country. They are all such self satisfied wankers. This show should have been cancelled years ago.

Ah come on. A Britain where Robert Jenrick (or an earnest arsehole from any political party) isn't roundly mocked is not a Britain I want to live in.

It was a brilliant bit of politics widely recognised on PB. It was also faintly ridiculous.

Yeah let's mock the guy pointing out how ridiculous crime has become instead of the police, judges and mayor who let it get that way. Like I said, it makes the BBC look like it's completely out of touch with reality.

If a satire show isn't mocking a senior politician running around a train station then something has gone seriously wrong with this country.

I think @MaxPB's point is that

1. It's not funny (it hasn't been funny for a decade or more)

2. It nearly ALWAYS aims at the right (which is one reason for its unfunniness, it is predictable = the death of humour)

3. It ignores HUGE targets for satire because it is "progressive" and cowardly. How about a riff mocking Islam, the Religion of Peace, for enforcing blasphemy laws because a by passer tried to gut the Koran-burner with a knife? That seems ripe for satire. Yet they don't go there. I wonder why

It is pathetic. Kill it off

HIGNFY was brilliant for the first 10 or 15 years with Deayton presenting, mainly because he mocked everyone regardless of whether they were left or right.

Yes, he mocked Hislop and Merton as they mocked him. Which made it often quite electrifying to watch

TBH I haven't watched an episode in years. I tuned in a couple of seasons ago for one episode, for about 15 minutes, and it was so desperately cringe and unfunny my scrotum LITERALLY tried to hide up my butthole, our of shameful embarrassment for all concerned. I am sorry for the mental image, but I have to be honest - that is what physically happened

Haven't seen it since

Andy_JS said:

"Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Online guidance says ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation
Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor" (£)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/

As @Leon said just now, the establishment will try to use the levers of power to outlaw dissent against their agenda. Kemi is right to look at lawfare, but she also needs to look at the establishment using the law to clamp down on dissent and free speech too.

HIGNFY is a relic from a country that no longer exists. It's from the same era as the Big Breakfast with Chris Evans and Gaby Roslin and it's impossible to imagine a show like that being made now.