Categories
Options
Wigs at Dawn – politicalbetting.com
Wigs at Dawn – politicalbetting.com
It’s good to be provocative. But to describe Jenrick being a lawyer as his secret weapon because it makes them good leaders and the country loves lawyers is not so much provocative as …. well, let’s see, shall we.
3
Comments
https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/s/WMfKS0R7PQ
The annual BBC middle class luvvie wankfest.
On your point that lawyers can fail to distinguish between something being right and it being legal - in the early New Labour era, I knew some lawyers who were involved in government affairs.
When I asked them about the use of ancient statutes to arrest people for holding up signs saying “Remember Tibet” (on the occasion of the Chinese state visit) I got the following reply
- The law could be used in this way
- Therefore it was the duty of the government to use it in this way
- Any disagreement with that was an attack on The Law.
The Lawyer’s Syllogism
This devaluation of a word with a precise meaning is highly dangerous
...
Once, the commanding officer of the base would have resigned immediately; the security officer would have been moved to the cookhouse, if he was lucky; and the Defence Secretary would have offered his resignation. But no-one resigns these days
...
... unconvincing cover for the sort of grotesque incompetence that characterises our public sector and public services
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/palestine-action-terrorists-brize-norton/ (£££)
Paywall-free link:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/662360248ab0447b
First headline:
"Free Palestine"
Well, yes. How exactly? And is this really the priority for the UK?
Second headline:
"Fight Starmer".
Even ahead of the evil Tories. I think the difficulties of fighting a blancmange are, if anything, even more underestimated than the first objective. You know he will only end up agreeing with them.
The fact he claims in essence to be a "clean skin" implying he has never before been in Government and therefore is not associated with the previous soiled incarnation of the Tory party is also to his advantage.
He is a new and fresh immigrant hating alternative to Farage, which is also to the Tory Party's advantage.
""A day like today is not a day for soundbites, we can leave those at home, but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder with respect to this, I really do".
One advantage lawyers do have as MPs is understanding the legalese in which bills are written. The drawback might be they are too keen to ban things of which they disapprove; to legislate rather than persuade.
Prediction: In 100 years time he will still a 'go to' performer showing people what Beethoven and Schubert piano music is about. Beethoven will then be 350 years old and still going strong. Kneecap and their fellow travellers won't even be a footnote.
Most ‘serious’ political journalists working for the broadsheets and broadcasters were educated alongside politicians at Oxford, which led to a snobbish contempt for those who were not, such as Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and John Major.
Some of the rebels still think they can overhaul the government at the Welfare Bill second reading with estimates currently about 40 to 50 implaccables trying to convince another 30 to join to effect defeat.
Will labour impose a three line whip? And are they then prepared to risk obliterating a chunk of their majority or not act on the rebellion and show fatal weakness to future rebellions?
A large group of mostly left wing suspendees would be a juicy moment for a Sultana/Corbyn/etc new vehicle to launch.
The fact they are trying to do committee and third reading in a week shows they know this is an utter gash policy
Legislation, like speeches, is no substitute for policies, resources and a determination to persuade and change underlying attitudes. It is a poor way to show how much they "care".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees#Broadcasters,_journalists,_media_(UK)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-deliberately-at-unarmed-gazans-waiting-for-humanitarian-aid/00000197-ad8e-de01-a39f-ffbe33780000
Actually it does have a serious question at its heart: what are the characteristics that we should seek in our leaders?
For my part, the point about Blair, Thatcher and Atlee was that they had a fundamental vision about what they wanted to achieve and were able to build a political coalition to achieve a good part of it.
Although in many ways Britain has a fantastic standard of living compared to all but a handful of states around the world, we are also haunted by the past- the sense that we have declined and failed as a nation, even when in large part this decline is both relative and also quite possibly even reversable, if we make the right choices.
The UK media- feral, irresponsible and shallow- is a terrible mirror to try and judge the success of anything, still less the complications of national power. So no doubt the business of government is more difficult and more complicated than it was, say, a generation or two ago.
I have had the privilege of spending time working with leaders of countries that have within the past 35 years established new democracies and I am often struck by the way in which the big questions asked in Estonia, Croatia or Poland give answers that are relevant to the UK.
Public administration has been modernised in Central Europe, but not yet in Britain. Legal systems and business law, especially taxation, have been rebuilt from the ground up, whereas the UK has the longest tax code in the world, 27,000 pages and counting- impossible for any single person to understand, let alone change. Local government has been redesigned to allow power to come from the regions to the centre, whereas the UK has become ever more centralised and even historic government units, like the thousand year old counties, have been redrawn willy-nilly with little to no reference to local wishes or needs.
These are all large areas of policy and no single individual can be master of them all. Unlike Presidential systems we elect a party of government. Despite the US-style focus on the Leader, the truth is, surely, that we should be looking for a block of competence and skills. Alas the current electoral system does not permit the voters that much choice, and little or no collaboration, so for me it is electoral reform that must start the process of national renewal.
And Central Europe got there first too...
Air Command sets the standards for the station (it's not a fucking 'base') and it's up to 2 Group via the Staish to implement and maintain that standard through supervision of MGPS or civvie contractors. At the moment it's, probably quite intentionally, not clear whether the standards were lax or the implementation was lacking. Though, I predict their Airships will hang it on the Staish eventually whether she deserves it or not.
London celebrates sporting success which is quite right.
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2015/07/22/god-and-mrs-thatcher
But it’s clear the pressures of what is an almost intolerably difficult job are already bearing down upon him. In an interview with The Observer he reveals his anger at criticism of his wife’s gifts from Lord Alli, the impact of the death of his brother in December and the firebomb attacks on his North London home. ‘I was really, really worried… Vic [his wife] was really shaken up as, in truth, was I.’
These attacks and bereavement would test any normal person. But being leader of a major Western democracy is not a normal job. Margaret Thatcher addressed her conference hours after the Brighton bombing. Barack Obama delivered his final speech before being elected President shedding tears over the passing of his mother. Donald Trump shook his fist defiantly at the gunman who had just bloodied him.
Keir Starmer, for all his qualities, is not a leader. His political opponents sense it. His own ministers and MPs realise it. And I suspect deep down, he is starting to recognise it himself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-14856729/DAN-HODGES-Keir-Starmers-time-Prime-Minister-over.html
Just listen to the man himself. Last month he delivered his Island of Strangers speech on immigration. ‘People who like politics will try to make this all about politics,’ Starmer claimed, ‘about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.’
But on Friday he dropped the pretence. He hadn’t actually read the speech properly. He now disavowed the Island of Strangers line – ‘I deeply regret using it.’ Most significantly, he then wanted to distance himself from his claim that immigration had done ‘incalculable damage’ to the country. ‘This wasn’t the way to do this in the current environment,’ he said.
In other words, he didn’t think it was right, fair or believe it at all. So if Keir Starmer doesn’t actually believe what Keir Starmer’s saying, why should anyone else?
Keir Starmer
Honouring the referendum and Leaving the EU was a "Matter of Principle"
Also
Demanding a Second Referendum and campaigning to Remain was a "Matter of Principle"
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1938921905269944662?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
It was unwise of PM to say he “deeply regrets” the “island of strangers” phrase – & even more so to admit that he doesn’t always read his speeches before delivering them
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1939239317957714325?s=61
I suspect it will be. ‘Taxi for Starmer’ sooner rather than later.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/formula-1-to-race-in-austria-through-to-2041-with-new-extension.HgOK1qQjX444utFdp1A6J
Anyway, I must be off. Still mildly miffed a 45 free bet missed by a whisker when Norris finally decided to qualify properly. Humbug.
Seldon with a glowing endorsement
MAAAAAAAATE
I don't think Sir Kier or his fans on here realise quite how damaging this admission is. He has effectively admitted that he stood up, and with the appearance of earnest sincerity, gave voice to sentiments he was not only not really on board with, but found repugnant. There can no longer be any trust in anything he says, ever.
What is more, his current confession doesn't seem to be any more an accurate reflection of his true feelings than the strangers speech. When he made that speech he was hoping to retain the red wall - now he's hoping to create a leftie coalition to save his party. What comes out of his mouth at any one time is based purely on expediency.
Few comments on this morning:
First of all, good to have a contribution from Ms Cyclefree again. To the point and well argued, as one expects (but doesn't ways get) from a lawyer. However, one small point; Attlee served in WWI as an officer ..... ended up a major ..... and therefore had some experience of command.
I agree that our current PM doesn't appear to be either good at the job or really want to do it; none of Cameron's attitude when asked why he wanted the job ...... he thought he'd be good at it. Starmer's PM because he's neither Rayner nor Corbyn, and because after ten years of a disjointed and disorganised Conservative government the country wanted something else ...... as shown by the massive increase in the LibDem vote, and House membership. It's at least arguable that the Coalition was a 'good' government; I didn't like many of the things they did, but at least they were stable, and maybe it's a pity that the election last year didn't give us a Lab/LibDem government, or at least LibDem C&S.
https://x.com/Truluck_Wilts/status/1939051966602322354
https://x.com/Truluck_Wilts/status/1939192942477877664
In a previous conversation with me he angrily dismissed the suggestion, most notably chronicled in Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund’s book Get In, that it is in fact McSweeney who is controlling the political direction of the government. “Total bollocks,” he said, the first time I’ve heard him swear. “The reality is Morgan and I have been working together for many, many years, running up and down the pitch together.” He continued: “That’s a good working relationship. But I didn’t buy anything in that book”, before acknowledging he had not read it.
That last line says everything about him
But no Tory front benchers.
I was previously optimistic that he would bring the same rigour to government as he did the Labour party (which was genuinely impressive). The other option is to come across as the good guy who's doing his best in the circumstances, thereby generating some sympathy. He's not doing either.
With an axe.
A case of - if all you have is an axe…
Oh for a PM of that quality.
Where are you?
And is it so remote that people tie dead rats to fences?
So Glasto is running their own, private detention centre. Complete with a private police force chucking people in it.
Wonder what Kneecap make of such internment?
"There's a ten-second gap when the guards change shifts and the spotlights point East"
"I'll tell Hilts. He's got the Triumph in the cooler"
(walk off, whistling nonchalantly)
It was THE major keynote speech on maybe the most important issue of our time. Denoting a major change of stance by the prime minister
Now it turns out he “never read the speech” and “didn’t mean a word he said”
I’m not sure how you can govern a country after that. It profoundly undermines him in every way. He cannot function as prime minister
Nothing has ever crossed the mans desk in his whole life. Savile, the thing we cant talk about, Connely, the rivers of islands of bloody strangers speech. Hes seen nothing and knows nothing about anything.