From the Independents report on the one in one out migrants deal with France
'A government source told the newspaper: “It’ll start as a pilot but it’s to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.”
A pilot scheme....... so no return % figures agreed, proof of concept hash that will quietly get shelved as the gangs continue unsmashed
On topic, I'd rather they skipped the generations and picked on the young man - is it Barron? Would he want it (yet), though?
Isn't he too young for 2028?
He's not eligible until 2041 (35 yo) So 2044 election
Really? That sounds a very good policy - age of maturity & all that.
I would only allow people to stand for President if they were between 49 and 54 years of age, can run a mile in less than 11 minutes, and are prepared to physically assaulted by Mike Tyson on YouTube.
From the Independents report on the one in one out migrants deal with France
'A government source told the newspaper: “It’ll start as a pilot but it’s to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.”
A pilot scheme....... so no return % figures agreed, proof of concept hash that will quietly get shelved as the gangs continue unsmashed
That needs very careful definition.
If France wanted to abuse it (as if !) all they would need to do is to tell their police to be incompetent for a day, and another 1000 would come over on rubber boats.
Who would then be returned, in exchange for 1000 via the British Consulate in Paris.
Where in the UK can you find the following in a small space, accessible to the general public? Some PBers have certainly walked right past it.
A section of Roman pavement. An Epstein sculpture. A 9th century BC stone with cuneiform inscriptions, from the area of modern Iraq. A memorial to a Russian Major, who fought for Czarist Russia, France and England.
Clues may be available.
(I came across it again today. I first visited in 1997. The annoying thing is that the only way there has steps .)
I saw no 3 in a video recently - from a Ziggurat and now surprisingly close to St Pauls?
I think it's from a place called Ziggurat. But that was what reminded me. The chap missed the Epstein, but they are trying to surprise and make you visit, too.
I used to go there with my packed lunch when I was working on Little Britain, and then Victoria Street. Since I was living nearby, I also experimented with campanology.
This is a piccie of the entrance with those (*&£%^&*^% %^*()()(^$ (**&&% **% steps. This will reverse image search. I love the Mk 1 wheeliebin discretely in the frame.
A Ziggurat is a stepped early pyramid like structure
If I get around to affording a flat in Central London, it would in a ziggurat. No - not THAT Ziggurat, that one has no garden .
I remember Ziggurats, Mesopotamia, Tigris and Euphrates etc due to one of those teachers that inspires you when aged 12 or 13. I also remember much later seeing an article in a newspaper telling the story of how a Ziggurat was almost blown up by Americans during a gulf war. Luckily the Lieutenant had heard of Ziggurats!
From the Independents report on the one in one out migrants deal with France
'A government source told the newspaper: “It’ll start as a pilot but it’s to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.”
A pilot scheme....... so no return % figures agreed, proof of concept hash that will quietly get shelved as the gangs continue unsmashed
That needs very careful definition.
If France wanted to abuse it (as if !) all they would need to do is to tell their police to be incompetent for a day, and another 1000 would come over on rubber boats.
Who would then be returned, in exchange for 1000 via the British Consulate in Paris.
Could happen, but even that would damage the gangs' business model.
Where in the UK can you find the following in a small space, accessible to the general public? Some PBers have certainly walked right past it.
A section of Roman pavement. An Epstein sculpture. A 9th century BC stone with cuneiform inscriptions, from the area of modern Iraq. A memorial to a Russian Major, who fought for Czarist Russia, France and England.
Clues may be available.
(I came across it again today. I first visited in 1997. The annoying thing is that the only way there has steps .)
I saw no 3 in a video recently - from a Ziggurat and now surprisingly close to St Pauls?
I think it's from a place called Ziggurat. But that was what reminded me. The chap missed the Epstein, but they are trying to surprise and make you visit, too.
I used to go there with my packed lunch when I was working on Little Britain, and then Victoria Street. Since I was living nearby, I also experimented with campanology.
This is a piccie of the entrance with those (*&£%^&*^% %^*()()(^$ (**&&% **% steps. This will reverse image search. I love the Mk 1 wheeliebin discretely in the frame.
A Ziggurat is a stepped early pyramid like structure
If I get around to affording a flat in Central London, it would in a ziggurat. No - not THAT Ziggurat, that one has no garden .
I remember Ziggurats, Mesopotamia, Tigris and Euphrates etc due to one of those teachers that inspires you when aged 12 or 13. I also remember much later seeing an article in a newspaper telling the story of how a Ziggurat was almost blown up by Americans during a gulf war. Luckily the Lieutenant had heard of Ziggurats!
There is also Art Nouveau Ziggurat in Clerkenwell.
Where in the UK can you find the following in a small space, accessible to the general public? Some PBers have certainly walked right past it.
A section of Roman pavement. An Epstein sculpture. A 9th century BC stone with cuneiform inscriptions, from the area of modern Iraq. A memorial to a Russian Major, who fought for Czarist Russia, France and England.
Clues may be available.
(I came across it again today. I first visited in 1997. The annoying thing is that the only way there has steps .)
I saw no 3 in a video recently - from a Ziggurat and now surprisingly close to St Pauls?
I think it's from a place called Ziggurat. But that was what reminded me. The chap missed the Epstein, but they are trying to surprise and make you visit, too.
I used to go there with my packed lunch when I was working on Little Britain, and then Victoria Street. Since I was living nearby, I also experimented with campanology.
This is a piccie of the entrance with those (*&£%^&*^% %^*()()(^$ (**&&% **% steps. This will reverse image search. I love the Mk 1 wheeliebin discretely in the frame.
A Ziggurat is a stepped early pyramid like structure
If I get around to affording a flat in Central London, it would in a ziggurat. No - not THAT Ziggurat, that one has no garden .
I remember Ziggurats, Mesopotamia, Tigris and Euphrates etc due to one of those teachers that inspires you when aged 12 or 13. I also remember much later seeing an article in a newspaper telling the story of how a Ziggurat was almost blown up by Americans during a gulf war. Luckily the Lieutenant had heard of Ziggurats!
There is also Art Nouveau Ziggurat in Clerkenwell.
From the Independents report on the one in one out migrants deal with France
'A government source told the newspaper: “It’ll start as a pilot but it’s to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.”
A pilot scheme....... so no return % figures agreed, proof of concept hash that will quietly get shelved as the gangs continue unsmashed
That needs very careful definition.
If France wanted to abuse it (as if !) all they would need to do is to tell their police to be incompetent for a day, and another 1000 would come over on rubber boats.
Who would then be returned, in exchange for 1000 via the British Consulate in Paris.
Could happen, but even that would damage the gangs' business model.
Depends a lot on what you think the problem is that you're trying to solve.
If the aim is to stop The Boats, it's probably a neat solution that helps. If the aim is really to stop The People, then nothing realistic short of gunboats works.
Where in the UK can you find the following in a small space, accessible to the general public? Some PBers have certainly walked right past it.
A section of Roman pavement. An Epstein sculpture. A 9th century BC stone with cuneiform inscriptions, from the area of modern Iraq. A memorial to a Russian Major, who fought for Czarist Russia, France and England.
Clues may be available.
(I came across it again today. I first visited in 1997. The annoying thing is that the only way there has steps .)
I saw no 3 in a video recently - from a Ziggurat and now surprisingly close to St Pauls?
I think it's from a place called Ziggurat. But that was what reminded me. The chap missed the Epstein, but they are trying to surprise and make you visit, too.
I used to go there with my packed lunch when I was working on Little Britain, and then Victoria Street. Since I was living nearby, I also experimented with campanology.
This is a piccie of the entrance with those (*&£%^&*^% %^*()()(^$ (**&&% **% steps. This will reverse image search. I love the Mk 1 wheeliebin discretely in the frame.
A Ziggurat is a stepped early pyramid like structure
If I get around to affording a flat in Central London, it would in a ziggurat. No - not THAT Ziggurat, that one has no garden .
I remember Ziggurats, Mesopotamia, Tigris and Euphrates etc due to one of those teachers that inspires you when aged 12 or 13. I also remember much later seeing an article in a newspaper telling the story of how a Ziggurat was almost blown up by Americans during a gulf war. Luckily the Lieutenant had heard of Ziggurats!
There is also Art Nouveau Ziggurat in Clerkenwell.
So, you're saying the only way is up for Buttigieg with African American voters?
(And - by the way - that table says that Buttigieg is the preferred Democratic nominee for 0% of African American Democrats, which is a slightly different thing.)
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
On why I akways like Glastonbury even now that it's become more mainstream, in response to a post o n tge previous thread, yours truly was there in 1982 for this performance.:
A musician I still like and fond memories. In that timepiece of a video there, you can see how much in the festival.has changed, but complainjng about how much it's changed has also itself become a bit of an annual tradition.
However mainstream it gets, I think it's a good institution to have on the Summer calendar now, keeping the mainstream UK in touch with a specifically British hippie-ruralist tradition, and also actually a religious -dissenting and Protestant Non-Conformist one, in the case of Michael Eavis.
I agree with this
I despair at the hypocritical booji twerps that now make Glasto near-unbearable, however it has established itself as part of the British summer season, and it is and always be iconic, and it will change again in the future. And at its best it is brilliant. On a still midsummer evening, with the sun going down, the music wafting over the campfires, and the Tor on the skyline, it does meld England now with England then and England which has yet to be. Arthurian and electric, the Holy Grail and MDMA, I have loved it. Better with loads of drugs, obvs
I was there in the early 80s! My first ever Glasto, it was either 82 or 83 - so I may have brushed past you. I was the guy on shrooms (one of many thousands, clearly)
I was there in 82 & 83 - i survived on Shrooms and Scrumpy.... i probably bumped in to you...
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
If Starmer does anything that a good leader would do, it's undoubtedly coincidence
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He has a funny way of showing it. He's the least liked Prime Minister since Viscount Castlereagh.
I enjoy listening to Radio 6 most of the year. But when they start jizzing themselves into a frenzy over Glastonbury, or "Glasto" as they insist on calling it, it becomes unbearable.
Bonsoir from Paris where I’ve just discovered how they implemented their equivalent for of TfL’s Oyster card.
They went for a keep it simple approach of forcing people to have a separate card for airport journeys.
Was trying to work out how that works on a phone / watch and I’m now too scared to try it.
Irony is it most cost them a fortune as when we left Paris to CDG in March the staff were letting tourists like us through the gates without even trying to charge us
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
Yes, with all the subsequent excitement everyone had forgotten about 'Island of Strangers' anyway. Okay, if Sir Keir is genuinely remorseful then you can't blame him for being honest, but the better approach would have been, if asked, to say 'I said what I said. Can't change the past. People can love me or hate me for it.' Beating himself up like this, if nothing else, makes him and his speechwriters look like bumbling amateurs.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
Yes, with all the subsequent excitement everyone had forgotten about 'Island of Strangers' anyway. Okay, if Sir Keir is genuinely remorseful then you can't blame him for being honest, but the better approach would have been, if asked, to say 'I said what I said. Can't change the past. People can love me or hate me for it.' Beating himself up like this, if nothing else, makes him and his speechwriters look like bumbling amateurs.
Maybe he should appoint himself DPP and do an Estelle Morris.
I enjoy listening to Radio 6 most of the year. But when they start jizzing themselves into a frenzy over Glastonbury, or "Glasto" as they insist on calling it, it becomes unbearable.
The whole of the BBC goes weird (weirder than usual) when it’s on.
Regardless of what one believes or does not believe about his life outside politics, one thing is completely clear - the man is an habitual liar. Lying is as natural to him as breathing, and even when he's telling the truth, like if he told you the grass was green, it wouldn't be because the grass was green, it would be because the script that week is that the grass is green because the little people like green grass. The veracity of the statement would be purely coincidental.
If Boris and Farage are rogues that some people love, Starmer is bent copper. He is Slater in Only Fools & Horses to Boris/Farage’s Del Boy
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
Yes, with all the subsequent excitement everyone had forgotten about 'Island of Strangers' anyway. Okay, if Sir Keir is genuinely remorseful then you can't blame him for being honest, but the better approach would have been, if asked, to say 'I said what I said. Can't change the past. People can love me or hate me for it.' Beating himself up like this, if nothing else, makes him and his speechwriters look like bumbling amateurs.
Maybe he should appoint himself DPP and do an Estelle Morris.
Whitbury New Town Leisure Centre is looking for a manager.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
I enjoy listening to Radio 6 most of the year. But when they start jizzing themselves into a frenzy over Glastonbury, or "Glasto" as they insist on calling it, it becomes unbearable.
At least that's their wheelhouse, when R4 starts doing it..
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
It wasn't that he said he regret the phrase as it was a bit Enoch-y and nobody realised. If that had been what he said, fair enough.
It was that he claims he hadn't read it (bullshit), that he was really tired and so just read out what was put in front of him (again bullshit, this was part of a big relaunch, it would have been written days/weeks before and he will have been asked for feedback in advance)....effectively he was passing the blame to his team for giving his a speech that some found offensive. Also, he is effectively admitting now he doesn't believe any of this stuff about tougher on immigration.
If he really isn't ever reading major speeches in advance, well he isn't a proper leader and Big Doms claims of it all been fake might be true.
And yes, I bet lazy Boris read out all sorts of crap he should have read in advance.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
It wasn’t just saying “I made a mistake” though. It was saying I did this because others wrote it for me, and I was too emotionally drained to understand, and I just read it, and I didn’t want to give the speech anyway.
There’s a way of admitting mistakes without coming across as weak and unprincipled.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
I simply don't believe his mea culpa. The words were very deliberate at the very time Reform were most rampant and he was talking them up as the main threat. And 'thats just not me' types need careful watching because it very much is you, bucko
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
I think this is right. Another time Starner did well is when his response to the passing of the Queen was much more empathic than Liz Truss.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
He doesn't need to win Red Wall voters over - that ship has long since sailed. He now needs to win lefties over to try to salvage the Labour Party as some sort of an electoral force. The goal isn't re-election, it's survival.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
It wasn’t just saying “I made a mistake” though. It was saying I did this because others wrote it for me, and I was too emotionally drained to understand, and I just read it, and I didn’t want to give the speech anyway.
There’s a way of admitting mistakes without coming across as weak and unprincipled.
He has never in his various careers accepted the concept of the buck stopping with him. He's the PM, 'my masters made me read it out, they never explained nothing to little me' is not an acceptable excuse
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Red Wall Reform voters. He has confirmed he isn't really aligned with them.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
He doesn't need to win Red Wall voters over - that ship has long since sailed. He now needs to win lefties over to try to salvage the Labour Party as some sort of an electoral force. The goal isn't re-election, it's survival.
He needs to beg London, 'Pool and Manchester to keep Labour relevant
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
It's not a question of weakness or strength. It's the lack of an inner core, a model of how the world works, the knowledge of how to change it, and the ability to persuade others to join you. He hasn't got that. He's a nice guy. He does nice guy things. He'd be, and was, a good human rights lawyer. But I don't think he has what it takes to be PM.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Reform voters.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
What he means is, "It was supposed to be a dog whistle, but instead the wrong people heard it and started comparing me to Enoch Powell."
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Reform voters.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
What he means is, "It was supposed to be a dog whistle, but instead the wrong people heard it and started comparing me to Enoch Powell."
Probably led to some very awkward dinner party conversations among the Islington set.
Regardless of what one believes or does not believe about his life outside politics, one thing is completely clear - the man is an habitual liar. Lying is as natural to him as breathing, and even when he's telling the truth, like if he told you the grass was green, it wouldn't be because the grass was green, it would be because the script that week is that the grass is green because the little people like green grass. The veracity of the statement would be purely coincidental.
If Boris and Farage are rogues that some people love, Starmer is bent copper. He is Slater in Only Fools & Horses to Boris/Farage’s Del Boy
Yes. As I said last week, he is a different class of liar. Boris always lied with bluster and a shamefaced look like a labrador that's just pissed on the chaise longue. Starmer looks you in the eye and demands you believe his utter untruths. He's like a husband who insists with a raised voice to his wife he hasn't touched a drop despite smelling like a distillery. I don't wish anyone ill, and I hope one day he finds some sort of personal redemption.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
He doesn't need to win Red Wall voters over - that ship has long since sailed. He now needs to win lefties over to try to salvage the Labour Party as some sort of an electoral force. The goal isn't re-election, it's survival.
You think all these hand wringers are actually going to vote Green at the GE and let a Refukker win their seat?
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Reform voters.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
What he means is, "It was supposed to be a dog whistle, but instead the wrong people heard it and started comparing me to Enoch Powell."
Speech never crossed his desk, did it, he wasnt across the detail
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. His ambition was to be Attorney General, not Prime Minister.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
He doesn't need to win Red Wall voters over - that ship has long since sailed. He now needs to win lefties over to try to salvage the Labour Party as some sort of an electoral force. The goal isn't re-election, it's survival.
You think all these hand wringers are actually going to vote Green at the GE and let a Refukker win their seat?
They'll see sense come election time.
I certainly don't think there will be enough of them to make a difference in enough seats to preserve the Labour Government. Sir is clearly hoping that there will be enough to preserve Labour as the second party.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Reform voters.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
What he means is, "It was supposed to be a dog whistle, but instead the wrong people heard it and started comparing me to Enoch Powell."
Speech never crossed his desk, did it, he wasnt across the detail
Why did he read a speech he hadn't read and didn't believe? He should have flunkies to do that, then he could fire them when he fucked up.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. His ambition was to be Attorney General, not Prime Minister.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
Don't forget how much of the media wants him to fail. He needs to bring back the Green Growth plan, and covered a vision around that, even if that means there have to be savings elsewhere.
It's too important both in economic and ideological terms, to do without it.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. His ambition was to be Attorney General, not Prime Minister.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
It wouldn't be reported if he had. Newspapers don't just have to stand the story up these days, they have to prove to a judge that it is 'in the public interest'. And I can't see it being deemed 'in the public interest' to publish sleazy stories like that.
The funny thing about Starmer regretting all his Island of Strangers stuff, the only people really offended by a single phrase in a single speech (that other than that was hardly Nick Griffin giving it the big'un) aren't the people he needs to win over.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
You don't think he needs to win over/back the Left? It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
The original speech was to try and target Reform voters.
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
What he means is, "It was supposed to be a dog whistle, but instead the wrong people heard it and started comparing me to Enoch Powell."
Speech never crossed his desk, did it, he wasnt across the detail
Why did he read a speech he hadn't read and didn't believe? He should have flunkies to do that, then he could fire them when he fucked up.
Nothing has ever crossed his desk, its a stock answer from him. Didn't prosecute? Never crossed my desk. Connelly case? Never seen any details. Enoch cosplay speech? Stuffed into my hand last second and forced to read by bigger boys
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. His ambition was to be Attorney General, not Prime Minister.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
Perhaps Starmer thought he was becoming Labour Leader to play the role of Kinnock to some other possible future Blair. Labour would have a lot more time to prepare for government and the most important thing he could achieve was making sure the Corbynites didn't take over when he made way for the next generation.
But then Boris destroyed himself, Truss happened, and Starmer found himself in the position of a paper candidate dismayed at winning election.
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
It is so unexpected just how weak a character he is
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
He’s an administrator (a pretty bad one). He doesn’t get the politics of governing. He might’ve been an average Secretary of State of a midranking department, that didn’t call for a lot of contentious policymaking. Put him in charge of education or local government, I’m sure he’d muddle through it in a distinctly beige, uncontroversial way.
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. His ambition was to be Attorney General, not Prime Minister.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
Perhaps Starmer thought he was becoming Labour Leader to play the role of Kinnock to some other possible future Blair. Labour would have a lot more time to prepare for government and the most important thing he could achieve was making sure the Corbynites didn't take over when he made way for the next generation.
But then Boris destroyed himself, Truss happened, and Starmer find himself in the position of a paper candidate dismayed at winning election.
And by doing so he has destroyed the Labour Party. And good riddance to pernicious rubbish.
Where in the UK can you find the following in a small space, accessible to the general public? Some PBers have certainly walked right past it.
A section of Roman pavement. An Epstein sculpture. A 9th century BC stone with cuneiform inscriptions, from the area of modern Iraq. A memorial to a Russian Major, who fought for Czarist Russia, France and England.
Clues may be available.
(I came across it again today. I first visited in 1997. The annoying thing is that the only way there has steps .)
I saw no 3 in a video recently - from a Ziggurat and now surprisingly close to St Pauls?
I think it's from a place called Ziggurat. But that was what reminded me. The chap missed the Epstein, but they are trying to surprise and make you visit, too.
I used to go there with my packed lunch when I was working on Little Britain, and then Victoria Street. Since I was living nearby, I also experimented with campanology.
This is a piccie of the entrance with those (*&£%^&*^% %^*()()(^$ (**&&% **% steps. This will reverse image search. I love the Mk 1 wheeliebin discretely in the frame.
If I read between the lines people who work for @Keir_Starmer are briefing against him because they don’t like him saying he regrets doing and saying things they wanted him to. This is nuts. There can only be one boss in No 10.
I think this weekend we will see a pretty intensive final push to harden opposition to the welfare bill. My guess is it will pass 2nd reading but he will have about 30 rebels voting no (whip suspensions?) And another 20 abstentions
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
Admitting to failings in the broad sense, sure. But admitting "I read out a speech from an autocue and I regret it now" isn't quite going to gain the same sympathy.
I think people expect a little more when it comes to their 'doing politics' from a serious Prime Minister. We might all mock some back bencher (or US senator) for saying "If I'd read the bill I wouldn't have voted for it!". But the guy in the top job? Inside number 10? Final say over launching nukes? Having been in senior posts for well over a decade?
"When I read 'Yes, launch the nukes' out from the autocue, I ... well, ... I quite regret that now. I hope some of you can still receive this broadcast and can forgive me. And vote for our amazing candidate at the Barnsley (South) by-election next week who still has a functioning eye!"
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
Admitting to failings in the broad sense, sure. But admitting "I read out a speech from an autocue and I regret it now" isn't quite going to gain the same sympathy.
I think people expect a little more when it comes to their 'doing politics' from a serious Prime Minister. We might all mock some back bencher (or US senator) for saying "If I'd read the bill I wouldn't have voted for it!". But the guy in the top job? Inside number 10? Final say over launching nukes? Having been in senior posts for well over a decade?
"When I read 'Yes, launch the nukes' out from the autocue, I ... well, ... I quite regret that now. I hope some of you can still receive this broadcast and can forgive me. And vote for our amazing candidate at the Barnsley (South) by-election next week who still has a functioning eye!"
Its a really dangerous game to start throwing your underlings under the bus...one groupchat showing that the speech was sent 2 weeks beforehand and got a response saying read it, it looks great....
Good leaders don’t turn around and start blaming their emotional state and their speechwriters for reading something off a script. They move on. Never explain yourself.
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
I'm likely to be in a minority of one on this but I'm not convinced. This is not 30-40 years ago, the world has changed, there's more "empathy" out there and a greater sense of fairness.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
Admitting to failings in the broad sense, sure. But admitting "I read out a speech from an autocue and I regret it now" isn't quite going to gain the same sympathy.
I think people expect a little more when it comes to their 'doing politics' from a serious Prime Minister. We might all mock some back bencher (or US senator) for saying "If I'd read the bill I wouldn't have voted for it!". But the guy in the top job? Inside number 10? Final say over launching nukes? Having been in senior posts for well over a decade?
"When I read 'Yes, launch the nukes' out from the autocue, I ... well, ... I quite regret that now. I hope some of you can still receive this broadcast and can forgive me. And vote for our amazing candidate at the Barnsley (South) by-election next week who still has a functioning eye!"
Its a really dangerous game to start throwing your underlings under the bus...one groupchat showing that the speech 2 weeks beforehand and got a response saying read, it looks great....
I'm not suggesting he throw his underlings under a bus. He should have (assuming he truly didn't mean to read out the big words flashing in his eyes on the laser display board) skimmed it beforehand and said 'wtf?', or ad-libbed if it really was the very first second he'd seen the speech.
He's sold himself on the 'serious man for serious time', 'all across the detail' spiel. So he at least needs to pay lip service to it. If he doesn't have the time to read his own speeches before he mouths them, or can't adapt while reading something he entirely disagrees with - then woe to Labour.
If I read between the lines people who work for @Keir_Starmer are briefing against him because they don’t like him saying he regrets doing and saying things they wanted him to. This is nuts. There can only be one boss in No 10.
And it used to be you, right? The great unelected liar of his age.
It's a crowded field in America but Pete has a really stupid name.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
Can't say I've ever given it any thought before, but when a gay couple have kids, do they agree which surname the kids get to use? Or do the kids get to choose later in life? Or maybe both surnames, hyphenated?
If I read between the lines people who work for @Keir_Starmer are briefing against him because they don’t like him saying he regrets doing and saying things they wanted him to. This is nuts. There can only be one boss in No 10.
And it used to be you, right? The great unelected liar of his age.
It's a crowded field in America but Pete has a really stupid name.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
Can't say I've ever given it any thought before, but when a gay couple have kids, do they agree which surname the kids get to use? Or do the kids get to choose later in life? Or maybe both surnames, hyphenated?
I know feel I need to get some answers.
Don't know anything about Mayor Pete's putative First Gentleman, but he'd struggle to match Melania. Her transparent disdain for everyone in her presence, including her husband, is a joy to behold.
It's a crowded field in America but Pete has a really stupid name.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
Can't say I've ever given it any thought before, but when a gay couple have kids, do they agree which surname the kids get to use? Or do the kids get to choose later in life? Or maybe both surnames, hyphenated?
I know feel I need to get some answers.
Don't know anything about Mayor Pete's putative First Gentleman, but he'd struggle to match Melania. Her transparent disdain for everyone in her presence, including her husband, is a joy to behold.
It's her disdain for her husband that makes it so intriguing...
It's a crowded field in America but Pete has a really stupid name.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
Can't say I've ever given it any thought before, but when a gay couple have kids, do they agree which surname the kids get to use? Or do the kids get to choose later in life? Or maybe both surnames, hyphenated?
I know feel I need to get some answers.
If my married gay friends are of a traditional disposition then they tend to double barrel their names. In the case of my husband and I we kept our own names as ours double barreled sounds like a sauce.
It's a crowded field in America but Pete has a really stupid name.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
Can't say I've ever given it any thought before, but when a gay couple have kids, do they agree which surname the kids get to use? Or do the kids get to choose later in life? Or maybe both surnames, hyphenated?
I know feel I need to get some answers.
If my married gay friends are of a traditional disposition then they tend to double barrel their names. In the case of my husband and I we kept our own names as ours double barreled sounds like a sauce.
Comments
'A government source told the newspaper: “It’ll start as a pilot but it’s to prove the point that if you pay for your passage on a boat then you could quite quickly find yourself back in France.”
A pilot scheme....... so no return % figures agreed, proof of concept hash that will quietly get shelved as the gangs continue unsmashed
If France wanted to abuse it (as if !) all they would need to do is to tell their police to be incompetent for a day, and another 1000 would come over on rubber boats.
Who would then be returned, in exchange for 1000 via the British Consulate in Paris.
The envelope or the [redacted].
Make sure you put it in the right box.
https://www.zigguratbuilding.com/the-ziggurat
She has about seventy five of them, some of them are huge. It takes half an hour to do them all
Looks quite good for a tiny yard in panoramic
If the aim is to stop The Boats, it's probably a neat solution that helps. If the aim is really to stop The People, then nothing realistic short of gunboats works.
Trump ending all trade talks with Canada ‘immediately’
Also not happy with the EU
Seems he is unhappy with the digital tax on US Companies
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1938611852784583060
It's a turn in the road using forward and reverse gears
(And - by the way - that table says that Buttigieg is the preferred Democratic nominee for 0% of African American Democrats, which is a slightly different thing.)
Starmer is really coming unstuck.
Seems he craves to be liked but that is not a leader
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/27/the-plot-against-morgan-mcsweeney/
They went for a keep it simple approach of forcing people to have a separate card for airport journeys.
Was trying to work out how that works on a phone / watch and I’m now too scared to try it.
Irony is it most cost them a fortune as when we left Paris to CDG in March the staff were letting tourists like us through the gates without even trying to charge us
But being PM means you have to care about everything. If you’re steering the ship of state, it helps to have an idea of where you want to steer it to. And if you really want to be the one steering, you have to inspire everyone else to go on the journey with you. What you say, matters. Showing your conviction matters. Taking the lead matters. Consistency matters. These are all things that Starmer is hopelessly useless at. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, where he’s going, or what he wants.
Even distinctly average-to-poor PMs like Brown and May got this. They might’ve been rather poor at the execution, but they understood what they had to do. Starmer, I’m unconvinced.
Admitting to failings isn't the taboo it was once.
I'm not sure I want a leader that never admits to failings or failure or mistakes - I have to admit to them, why shouldn't the Prime Minister? I know the answer - because it shows "weakness".
Does it? Depends how you define weakness or strength I suppose.
It was that he claims he hadn't read it (bullshit), that he was really tired and so just read out what was put in front of him (again bullshit, this was part of a big relaunch, it would have been written days/weeks before and he will have been asked for feedback in advance)....effectively he was passing the blame to his team for giving his a speech that some found offensive. Also, he is effectively admitting now he doesn't believe any of this stuff about tougher on immigration.
If he really isn't ever reading major speeches in advance, well he isn't a proper leader and Big Doms claims of it all been fake might be true.
And yes, I bet lazy Boris read out all sorts of crap he should have read in advance.
There’s a way of admitting mistakes without coming across as weak and unprincipled.
All those Red Wall voters who are concerned about immigration now just got further proof he isn't serious about dealing with it.
And 'thats just not me' types need careful watching because it very much is you, bucko
It's a view (one that Team Starmer held and may still hold).
He's the PM, 'my masters made me read it out, they never explained nothing to little me' is not an acceptable excuse
I think a good chunk of the left will vote for him to stop Reform. I am sure this BS in this interview is trying to show some ankle to them that he isn't really a mini-Nigel. I guess the question is, is it enough? And it plays in to what a lot of Corbyn types have said for a long time, is that he can't be trusted in what he says.
https://x.com/keyworkerman/status/1938656198280302765?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
They'll see sense come election time.
That said, I think some of the media reaction is OTT. No-one's died, and he has not been caught in flagrante wossname with the first rumour or the second.
It's too important both in economic and ideological terms, to do without it.
People forget how fucking shite January and February and early March were, when we went almost 2 months without seeing the sun.
But then Boris destroyed himself, Truss happened, and Starmer found himself in the position of a paper candidate dismayed at winning election.
he did want it, but hasn't got a clue how to use it. It is pitiable
Just checked into my hotel in Paris (it's not in the best area but the room was stupidly cheap) and the expected temperature for Tuesday is 38..
https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/1938642249107247116
If I read between the lines people who work for @Keir_Starmer are briefing against him because they don’t like him saying he regrets doing and saying things they wanted him to. This is nuts. There can only be one boss in No 10.
How is it pronounced? BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?
Give me a break.
I think people expect a little more when it comes to their 'doing politics' from a serious Prime Minister. We might all mock some back bencher (or US senator) for saying "If I'd read the bill I wouldn't have voted for it!". But the guy in the top job? Inside number 10? Final say over launching nukes? Having been in senior posts for well over a decade?
"When I read 'Yes, launch the nukes' out from the autocue, I ... well, ... I quite regret that now. I hope some of you can still receive this broadcast and can forgive me. And vote for our amazing candidate at the Barnsley (South) by-election next week who still has a functioning eye!"
He's sold himself on the 'serious man for serious time', 'all across the detail' spiel. So he at least needs to pay lip service to it. If he doesn't have the time to read his own speeches before he mouths them, or can't adapt while reading something he entirely disagrees with - then woe to Labour.
I know feel I need to get some answers.
That's sheep, not people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep_farming_in_Wales
They've also hit a servicing area, so there may be others to be added.
Mike Sington
@MikeSington
“Have no basis in fact.” MSNBC cuts out of Trump’s press conference to fact check him. The media must do this every time he speaks.
https://x.com/MikeSington/status/1938692994728886667
Amazing views yet apart from the pre-show hour you can have it almost to yourselves