If found the following photograph from Glastonbury indicative -
"Dickie, what do you think?" "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)
I say, Woger, if we build a vaulting horse, we could dig the tunnel there. Right in front of the goons!
Eldest Granddaughter and her Partner are at Glastonbury. I'll ask them about it when it's all over.
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
And is it so remote that people tie dead rats to fences?
I’m in the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. It was a five hour drive from Sofia to my hotel. On increasingly insane roads - the last hour - OMG
It really is one of the last pockets of untouched wilderness in Europe. Lots of bears and wolves. Lynx. Superb birdlife. Incredible variety of flora - 60% of Europe’s flower species can be found here
It feels more like a remote place in the Caucasus than “Europe”
To dumb down Cyclefree into leery PB BTL speak: "Starmer is a bit shit but probably better than the alternatives" - I wouldn't take too much issue with this.
To translate "ten year Kier" kinabalu into normal language, "Starmer is a bit shit" = "Starmer is absolutely awful".
I actually read the header and hence saw the contextual references to modern British politics in general and to the abominable Jenrick.
And is it so remote that people tie dead rats to fences?
I’m in the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. It was a five hour drive from Sofia to my hotel. On increasingly insane roads - the last hour - OMG
It really is one of the last pockets of untouched wilderness in Europe. Lots of bears and wolves. Lynx. Superb birdlife. Incredible variety of flora - 60% of Europe’s flower species can be found here
It feels more like a remote place in the Caucasus than “Europe”
King Boris was very drawn to Bulgaria's wilderness and its wildlife.
That was before he played high stakes poker with Hitler over the fate of Bulgaria's Jews - and lost his life a a result. But he saved 50,000 lives for his own.
Spielberg wanted to make his life story - but his very aged widow refused to co-operate. She is now dead, so the story might yet get told.
And is it so remote that people tie dead rats to fences?
I’m in the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. It was a five hour drive from Sofia to my hotel. On increasingly insane roads - the last hour - OMG
It really is one of the last pockets of untouched wilderness in Europe. Lots of bears and wolves. Lynx. Superb birdlife. Incredible variety of flora - 60% of Europe’s flower species can be found here
It feels more like a remote place in the Caucasus than “Europe”
And getting more remote. Bulgaria's population has declined by 25% over the past 35 years.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
Having read the full article, I do have to wonder whether the man actually wants to be Prime Minister. He seems very haunted by any questioning of anything to do with his private life, and far too self-reflective and self-critical of everything he’s done so far (for a leader).
I have to say that if there are rumblings of revolt in Labour after the 2026 elections, I wonder how much energy he’ll expend in trying to cling on.
Second. No third. Unlike Arsenal, and way ahead of Glastonbury's position in cultural importance this month which trails way behind the death of Alfred Brendel.
I don’t even know who he is but I agree.
The annual BBC middle class luvvie wankfest.
One of the greatest pianists of his generation. A Czech, settled in Britain, and a huge part of our cultural life for decades.
To dumb down Cyclefree into leery PB BTL speak: "Starmer is a bit shit but probably better than the alternatives" - I wouldn't take too much issue with this.
To translate "ten year Kier" kinabalu into normal language, "Starmer is a bit shit" = "Starmer is absolutely awful".
I actually read the header and hence saw the contextual references to modern British politics in general and to the abominable Jenrick.
When we're talking wuth varying levels of despair about the various alternatives to Starmer - Jenrick, Farage, Rayner - it is interesting that the LOTO is rarely mentioned. Which must be depressing for her. FWIW, I still think Kemi a better alternative than any of the options listed above. Though she is making so little impression that this is based largely on guesswork.
Palestine Action are not terrorists. The RAF is just grossly incompetent 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/ (£££)
There is no "precise meaning" for terrorism. It's always been a politically contested term - and the legal definitions, which are different for many jurisdictions, aren't very precise either.
Gammon frotting level 9 already. Calm doon, there's a long day ahead.
Given the contemptfest on SKS for being a vacillating void of a vacuum I'd have expected some grudging admiration for the straight-talking 'we know where we stand' unit that is Kneecap. But no!
To dumb down Cyclefree into leery PB BTL speak: "Starmer is a bit shit but probably better than the alternatives" - I wouldn't take too much issue with this.
To translate "ten year Kier" kinabalu into normal language, "Starmer is a bit shit" = "Starmer is absolutely awful".
I actually read the header and hence saw the contextual references to modern British politics in general and to the abominable Jenrick.
When we're talking wuth varying levels of despair about the various alternatives to Starmer - Jenrick, Farage, Rayner - it is interesting that the LOTO is rarely mentioned. Which must be depressing for her. FWIW, I still think Kemi a better alternative than any of the options listed above. Though she is making so little impression that this is based largely on guesswork.
I have some sympathy for her because I think anyone who won that leadership election would have really struggled. It was always going to be a poisoned chalice, and it was going to be monumentally difficult for anyone who'd won it to persuade people they had a legitimate chance of leading the Tories back to government. That said, I don't think she's played a bad hand that well either.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
But its 100% what youd expect from him 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.
When I was urging the Tories to rid themselves of Sunak, I argued that they needed to reset toward Tory growth policies, and that Sunak couldn't be the instrument of that reset, because he could not credibly sell it, having identified himself so strongly with the 'grown up' politics of managed decline.
This current trainwreck is a bit like that. Labour has identified the need to reset quickly - to move away from trying to win back reform voters, and move toward trying to form and motivate a coalition of voters who loathe Reform. But to do that properly, they need to ditch Starmer for Rayner. It would appear he doesn't want to be ditched, so you get this ludicrous attempted flip which Olga Korbut couldn't pull off, where Starmer is now sincerely confessing us all what rubbish his previous sincere confessions were.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
Combining this thread and the tail end of the last, we should not overlook snobbery in the media.
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.
Kinnock read at the University of Wales for goodness sake.
If found the following photograph from Glastonbury indicative -
"Dickie, what do you think?" "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)
I say, Woger, if we build a vaulting horse, we could dig the tunnel there. Right in front of the goons!
Eldest Granddaughter and her Partner are at Glastonbury. I'll ask them about it when it's all over.
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
I do wish I'd gone at least once when I was young enough. Couldn't handle it now. The only way I could 'do' Glasto now would be as a performer. Swoop in by helicopter, play my 'set', then copter straight back out. Perhaps next year would work for this since it's a 'fallow' and there'll be nobody there. Take the pressure off and allow me to relax and showcase new material.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
Bit shocking that a Trump supporter, GC, Putinist and self described Zionist would come out with stuff like this. Had to pick myself up off the floor I did.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
If found the following photograph from Glastonbury indicative -
"Dickie, what do you think?" "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)
I say, Woger, if we build a vaulting horse, we could dig the tunnel there. Right in front of the goons!
Eldest Granddaughter and her Partner are at Glastonbury. I'll ask them about it when it's all over.
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
I do wish I'd gone at least once when I was young enough. Couldn't handle it now. The only way I could 'do' Glasto now would be as a performer. Swoop in by helicopter, play my 'set', then copter straight back out. Perhaps next year would work for this since it's a 'fallow' and there'll be nobody there. Take the pressure off and allow me to relax and showcase new material.
You could volunteer in some capacity. Not for me, either, particularly now but there seem to some volunteers in their 50's and even above.
Delighted at the mischief in Cyclefree´s excellent header.
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.
Looks like the Bishop of Leicester's chances of being next Archbishop of Canterbury are over after this BBC news story this morning. The Bishop of Chelmsford likely favourite to become the first female Archbishop
Combining this thread and the tail end of the last, we should not overlook snobbery in the media.
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.
Kinnock read at the University of Wales for goodness sake.
Which is not Oxbridge, or even Durham or Edinburgh or UCL or LSE
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
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
It tells us that Starmer hasn't read a book he disagrees with, but surely will have read reviews of and perhaps extracts from. Isn't that how most of us approach books?
To dumb down Cyclefree into leery PB BTL speak: "Starmer is a bit shit but probably better than the alternatives" - I wouldn't take too much issue with this.
To translate "ten year Kier" kinabalu into normal language, "Starmer is a bit shit" = "Starmer is absolutely awful".
I actually read the header and hence saw the contextual references to modern British politics in general and to the abominable Jenrick.
When we're talking wuth varying levels of despair about the various alternatives to Starmer - Jenrick, Farage, Rayner - it is interesting that the LOTO is rarely mentioned. Which must be depressing for her. FWIW, I still think Kemi a better alternative than any of the options listed above. Though she is making so little impression that this is based largely on guesswork.
She seems lightweight to me. But - huge caveat - the job of Con leader is right now the toughest gig in politics and she's inexperienced and not been in it for long. In horse terms she's quite unexposed, ie could improve with racing. This has to start soon though otherwise connections will lose patience and she'll be put out to pasture.
The trouble with critiques (and laudations) of political leadership is that people always want the opposite of what they had before, without looking ahead to the downsides the next one.
Wanting Jenrick because he can counter Kemi's weak spots ignores that he's a thoroughly dodgy character, and the minute he gets the job - if that transpires - the Tories will find that honesty and probity suddenly become issues once again.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
I think this criticism is telling. The PM is not in the position of being able to speak anything at all in public without allowing it to pass through his own brain at the point of delivery. Even when you have written or approved a speech, you have have to evaluate its effrct as you go along, amending where necessary even if it's all written in front of you. You never know quite what words mean until you are delivering them in front of the actual audience.
In retrospect, the 'release the sausages' moment was more than just a daft slip. It was someone speechifying while advance warning brain was switched off. PMs can't do that. We are still getting used to the fact that Trump can. It doesn't mean anyone else can.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
If found the following photograph from Glastonbury indicative -
"Dickie, what do you think?" "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)
I say, Woger, if we build a vaulting horse, we could dig the tunnel there. Right in front of the goons!
Eldest Granddaughter and her Partner are at Glastonbury. I'll ask them about it when it's all over.
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
I do wish I'd gone at least once when I was young enough. Couldn't handle it now. The only way I could 'do' Glasto now would be as a performer. Swoop in by helicopter, play my 'set', then copter straight back out. Perhaps next year would work for this since it's a 'fallow' and there'll be nobody there. Take the pressure off and allow me to relax and showcase new material.
I did go to one, some time back. I would say I somewhat enjoyed it (for the experience and spending a weekend with friends) and I’m glad I went, but I never did it again. There is an inordinate amount of standing/sitting around, eating rather disappointing food and having odd aches and pains from having to spend the night in a tent. I was always rather straight laced though so I didn’t partake in anything mind altering (save booze), maybe if you were inclined to do those sorts of things that would have made the dull uncomfortable bits more tolerable, I cannot say. Got through a fair amount of beer though. I was also lucky because it was sunny weather, going when it turns into a mud bath looks grim.
And is it so remote that people tie dead rats to fences?
I’m in the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. It was a five hour drive from Sofia to my hotel. On increasingly insane roads - the last hour - OMG
It really is one of the last pockets of untouched wilderness in Europe. Lots of bears and wolves. Lynx. Superb birdlife. Incredible variety of flora - 60% of Europe’s flower species can be found here
It feels more like a remote place in the Caucasus than “Europe”
A trip I have I mind for a future year is taking the dog to Crete, driving down through Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and returning by ferry to Italy. Those mountains are a potential stopover for a few days, so let me know how it goes?
Bulgarian vegetables are supposed to be worth writing home about.
Meanwhile it's hot to be outside in Oslo, so while the sun starved Norwegians are all stripping off in the heat, the dog and I have retreated to a Brewdog place indoors, and Mr Dog is just finishing off a 75 NOK doggie burger.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
There's nothing there. He is utterly hollow. Airfix kit PM
That’s disgraceful. I have many fond memories of Airfix. They produced solid, well made kits. On one occasion, when a piece got broken, on writing a letter to them, they sent the replacement free of charge.
Oh for a PM of that quality.
Have you tried writing and explaining that the person chosen as PM is broken and needs to be replaced? Might be worth a go.
Does remind me of a story from many years ago where someone was driving a Silver Shadow around France. A major piece broke and had to be flown out to them to allow them to get home. After a while he was conscious that he had never had a bill for that so, being an honest chap, he contacted the company. The reply? "Sorry sir, but that's impossible, Silver Shadows do not break down."
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
I came across an FB thread from some Norwegian guy, exhorting visitors to give Oslo a miss, because it's apparently more like Algeria nowadays. Now that I'm here, surrounded by blonde braless women, I'm not really seeing what that guy, who might or might not have been called Ljón, was getting at.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
He gave interviews around the whole topic, and it was accompanied by an immigration policy 'crackdown' (the puny details of which escape me). It was not just a speech that was put before of Starmer and he read off the autocue - as inexcusable as even that would be.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
It depends when any vacancy arose. If it was before the next election, it's hard to see past them. If after it, a hell of a lot can happen in 5+ years.
People have become very used to a bewildering rate of change in leadership, with six Tory leaders (five of them PMs) in less than ten years and maybe a seventh not so far away.
Maybe Labour will take fright at the polls and follow a similar pattern. But we're a fraction under a year into this Government and there's a pretty good chance, with an enormous majority and no real prospect of the Government itself falling, that they'll go the distance with Starmer and that it'll be a pretty settled period in leadership terms.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
Shh. People might notice.
As both Cambridge alumni, I guess that Rawnsley has good links into Streeting, and when you read R's quotes from well-placed senior Labour ministers, it does often seem rather obvious who it might be
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
It tells us that Starmer hasn't read a book he disagrees with, but surely will have read reviews of and perhaps extracts from. Isn't that how most of us approach books?
'I didn't buy anything in that book' 'I have not read that book'
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
John Healey seems to be doing well at the MoD, as does David Lammy at the FCO. Yvette Cooper has her fans too.
Lammy needs to be about 20-30% less black to win back Fukkers. See also Kemi.
That teenage boy that goes camping with Ed Balls might have a shot.
As much as I like Our Ange and feel she'd be effective against everyone's second favourite populist conman, I don't think the Blairites and Spad Industrial Complex will suffer her as leader.
If found the following photograph from Glastonbury indicative -
"Dickie, what do you think?" "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)
I say, Woger, if we build a vaulting horse, we could dig the tunnel there. Right in front of the goons!
Eldest Granddaughter and her Partner are at Glastonbury. I'll ask them about it when it's all over.
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
I do wish I'd gone at least once when I was young enough. Couldn't handle it now. The only way I could 'do' Glasto now would be as a performer. Swoop in by helicopter, play my 'set', then copter straight back out. Perhaps next year would work for this since it's a 'fallow' and there'll be nobody there. Take the pressure off and allow me to relax and showcase new material.
I did go to one, some time back. I would say I somewhat enjoyed it (for the experience and spending a weekend with friends) and I’m glad I went, but I never did it again. There is an inordinate amount of standing/sitting around, eating rather disappointing food and having odd aches and pains from having to spend the night in a tent. I was always rather straight laced though so I didn’t partake in anything mind altering (save booze), maybe if you were inclined to do those sorts of things that would have made the dull uncomfortable bits more tolerable, I cannot say. Got through a fair amount of beer though. I was also lucky because it was sunny weather, going when it turns into a mud bath looks grim.
In defence of festivals, you will end up listening to a lot of artists that you otherwise would unlikely have gone to their gigs. Some of those are a nice 30 mins and you still would never go to a gig, others will become bands / artists that you go on to really like.
Delighted at the mischief in Cyclefree´s excellent header.
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...
That sounds like the bones of a good header.
IIRC Estonia nuked their very tangled income tax law, post Soviet Union, and replaced it with a flat rate income tax.
I’m old enough to remember when Starmer was said to be “forensic”
lol. Who would claim that now?
“I applied my forensic skills to not reading the most important speech I’ve made in months. I looked at the title sort of - but then I applied really forensic attention and forensically ignored every word inside. Then forensically I said these words without understanding how they might come across, and now with my deeply forensic skills I can see that this was a mistake, but in a month I might have forensically analysed this and changed my mind again. I don’t what I think at any time. My father was a toolmaker”
I’m old enough to remember when Starmer was said to be “forensic”
lol. Who would claim that now?
“I applied my forensic skills to not reading the most important speech I’ve made in months. I looked at the title sort of - but then I applied really forensic attention and forensically ignored every word inside. Then forensically I said these words without understanding how they might come across, and now with my deeply forensic skills I can see that this was a mistake, but in a month I might have forensically analysed this and changed my mind again. I don’t what I think at any time. My father was a toolmaker”
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
It’s stomach turning
According to the BBC report I have just googled, he simply says he regrets the phrase used, because he didn't realise it would be compared with Powell's Rivers of Blood speech.
So he's not saying he disagrees with anything he said, just that he was a bit stupid for using the Island of Strangers phrase. Which I admit I didn't know was similar to something in the Rivers of Blood speech, but then I'm not a politician.
So I'm not sure it shows any deep mendacity or flip-flopness, but it does show deep incompetence as you might expect the leader of the labour party and their speech writing team to have some knowledge of British political history
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
It’s stomach turning
Ah, I see. The old "at least he doesn't pretend to be anything but a shit" chestnut. Yes, that is heard regularly from those of a populist right persuasion - I guess because there are so many transparent shits in that space.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
When you’re had over by someone who pretends to be a vicar it feels worse than when it’s a second hand car dealer
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
Is this common in the UK? Do wealthy men often buy clothes (including lingerie) for other men's wives? Or was the lingerie a case of the lady being given a credit card, and using it unwisely?
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Is this common in the UK? Do wealthy men often buy clothes (including lingerie) for other men's wives? Or was the lingerie a case of the lady being given a credit card, and using it unwisely?
Its not remotely common. Unless the husband is a massive cuck
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
It’s stomach turning
According to the BBC report I have just googled, he simply says he regrets the phrase used, because he didn't realise it would be compared with Powell's Rivers of Blood speech.
So he's not saying he disagrees with anything he said, just that he was a bit stupid for using the Island of Strangers phrase. Which I admit I didn't know was similar to something in the Rivers of Blood speech, but then I'm not a politician.
So I'm not sure it shows any deep mendacity or flip-flopness, but it does show deep incompetence as you might expect the leader of the labour party and their speech writing team to have some knowledge of British political history
No. He’s also disavowing other parts of it. Like mass immigration causing “incalculable damage”
His excuse is literally that HE DIDN’T READ THE SPEECH beforehand - one of the most important speeches of his prime ministerial career to date - and he didn’t realise what he was saying as he said it
The first is a lie and the second is another lie. He’s a grossly incompetent fool who constantly lies to get himself out of trouble, but only makes it worse
He can’t even lie with a bit of charisma like Boris. He just flat out lies while lecturing everyone else. It’s rebarbative
I’m old enough to remember when Starmer was said to be “forensic”
lol. Who would claim that now?
“I applied my forensic skills to not reading the most important speech I’ve made in months. I looked at the title sort of - but then I applied really forensic attention and forensically ignored every word inside. Then forensically I said these words without understanding how they might come across, and now with my deeply forensic skills I can see that this was a mistake, but in a month I might have forensically analysed this and changed my mind again. I don’t what I think at any time. My father was a toolmaker”
Is this common in the UK? Do wealthy men often buy clothes (including lingerie) for other men's wives? Or was the lingerie a case of the lady being given a credit card, and using it unwisely?
Very common, it is just that the husband isn't aware of this wealthy man and that he is also banging his wife. Obviously in Starmer situation that isn't the case.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
It’s stomach turning
Valery Giscard d'Estang famously said he didn't like Margaret Thatcher either as a man or a woman. He could have been speaking about Keir Starmer.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
It was 'just rejoice at that news' when they were pressing about the rest of the war rather than focusing on the first big victory
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Even if it were not, celebrating victory and congratulating the forces on their bravery and skill is not the same as 'calling for the death of' anyone else. How failing to do that makes anyone a 'bit of an idiot' is a real puzzler. Makes them a 'bit of a statesman' would be my thinking.
As the temperature in London approaches that of Hades' boiler room, I'm left bemused by some of the anti-Glastonbury rants on here this morning.
I've seen it described it as a "middle class, luvvie, wankfest" - now I don't even know what that means apart from some incoherent venting.
How is Glastonbury any more or less "representative" of modern Britain than Royal Ascot? Ascot had about 286,000 over five days in a corner of Berkshire with different stages and enclosures so it's not really much different. It's also expensive to get into and while there is a slight possibility you can leave with more money than with which you arrived (not if you follow my selections of course), most people spend out on the food, drink and entertainment provided.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Even if it were not, celebrating victory and congratulating the forces on their bravery and skill is not the same as 'calling for the death of' anyone else. How failing to do that makes anyone a 'bit of an idiot' is a real puzzler. Makes them a 'bit of a statesman' would be my thinking.
The context was, he was criticising the wanker at Glasto for saying it. Well the correct answer is, Streeting wouldn't say it because he is a politician, but it is OK for anyone else to say it if the want to
Is this common in the UK? Do wealthy men often buy clothes (including lingerie) for other men's wives? Or was the lingerie a case of the lady being given a credit card, and using it unwisely?
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
When you’re had over by someone who pretends to be a vicar it feels worse than when it’s a second hand car dealer
A charlatan is more acceptable if they don't hide it because it's authentic not hypocritical - I think this is bollox served up by people on the populist right for purely self-serving reasons (because 'their' pols are more likely to be in this vein).
Entered my car in a car show. First time. Good fun. 250ish cars. Only rule is it has to be 1999 or older. Some really old stuff here. There is also another Cobra 427 and a GT40, which I love. Not expecting to win anything although the car is attracting interest in particular from a Ferrari owner. Been asked to start it a few times. Nothing like the sound of a V8.
Bloody hell. This must be the most remote place on the European mainland. Certainly outside the far north
I reckon I will be able to trump that second sentence in about a month's time
In mainland Europe outside the far north?
I’m honestly struggling to think of somewhere that beats here. Perhaps the deep carpathians? But Bulgaria is even poorer. I’ve been to inland Moldova and Montenegro and they can be remote but not like here
If you include Russia to the urals and also the Caucasus then yes there are places in Armenia and Georgia significantly more remote than this - just about. But I don’t really see them as “Europe”
Of course there are much more remote ISLANDS but I’m talking mainland
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Even if it were not, celebrating victory and congratulating the forces on their bravery and skill is not the same as 'calling for the death of' anyone else. How failing to do that makes anyone a 'bit of an idiot' is a real puzzler. Makes them a 'bit of a statesman' would be my thinking.
Maybe even a bit… decent
‘May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my country and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory, and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually, I commit my life to him that made me; and may His blessing alight on my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself, and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen.’
Clothes and politicians: To me, one of the most interesting examples was the reaction to Washington state governor Dixie Lee Ray: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixy_Lee_Ray
For her inaugural ball, she made her own dress. Which was much criticized, though not by my mother.
(You'll find that parts of that biography hard to believe.)
Entered my car in a car show. First time. Good fun. 250ish cars. Only rule is it has to be 1999 or older. Some really old stuff here. There is also another Cobra 427 and a GT40, which I love. Not expecting to win anything although the car is attracting interest in particular from a Ferrari owner. Been asked to start it a few times. Nothing like the sound of a V8.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
Is he? Unlike the Tories, Labour leadership elections always have to go to the membership if contested, MPs alone can't pick a candidate as the Tories did when they picked Sunak in autumn 2022.
The latest Labourlist poll has Burnham first choice of 29%, then Rayner with 20% then Streeting with a mere 8% only just ahead of Cooper and Lewis on 5%.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
I don’t believe anyone should be prosecuted for this. Free speech and all that. I’m dubious you can incite violence against an army at war
However it is the optics that are shocking. Seeing 50,000 people chanting “death to X” is seriously disturbing and grotesque. It simply IS. Have you seen the footage? It’s grim. It wouid be grim if they were shouting “death to the Russian army!”
Huge crowds calling “death to anyone” is ugly and inhuman - and this at a music festival once dedicated to peace? Ugh
It’s doing terrible damage to the Glastonbury brand - it’s going viral worldwide - which is why they are now hastily trying to make amends. I can see serious problems with their corporate sponsors and also for the BBC
When did Wes Streeting become a spokesman for Hamas ?
Wes Streeting is the recipient of large amounts of donations from private medical firms and Tufton Street. Even by the standards of the 2020s, he is the most obviously beholden. If 55 Tufton Street tell him to back Hamas, he'll back Hamas
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Even if it were not, celebrating victory and congratulating the forces on their bravery and skill is not the same as 'calling for the death of' anyone else. How failing to do that makes anyone a 'bit of an idiot' is a real puzzler. Makes them a 'bit of a statesman' would be my thinking.
Maybe even a bit… decent
‘May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my country and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory, and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually, I commit my life to him that made me; and may His blessing alight on my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself, and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen.’
He also said "you should hate a Frenchman as you would the Devil" (although a good number actually served in the British fleet)
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
IIRC her “Rejoice, rejoice” comment was because South Georgia was recaptured without casualties on either side.
Even if it were not, celebrating victory and congratulating the forces on their bravery and skill is not the same as 'calling for the death of' anyone else. How failing to do that makes anyone a 'bit of an idiot' is a real puzzler. Makes them a 'bit of a statesman' would be my thinking.
Maybe even a bit… decent
‘May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my country and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory, and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually, I commit my life to him that made me; and may His blessing alight on my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself, and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen.’
He also said "you should hate a Frenchman as you would the Devil" (although a good number actually served in the British fleet)
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
When you’re had over by someone who pretends to be a vicar it feels worse than when it’s a second hand car dealer
A charlatan is more acceptable if they don't hide it because it's authentic not hypocritical - I think this is bollox served up by people on the populist right for purely self-serving reasons (because 'their' pols are more likely to be in this vein).
You can think what you like. Hypocrisy often inflames feelings more than the original crime.
Boris had a reputation as a bounder and a cad, so it was priced in. Farage too. Starmer piously declared himself a clean broom to see off such gutter level politicians, and it turns out, as I said all along, he is just the same.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet Sir Keir on a number of occasions. He is a decent, grounded, well-meaning man.
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.
Brilliant take down of Sir Keir’s double standards/U-turns/lies from Dan Hodges in todays Mail on Sunday.
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?
Well, quite.
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.
Quite an amazing admission, confirming what his critics have always said about him
You’re absolutely right to harp on this. The more I think about it the worse it gets. This wasn’t some off the cuff remark thrown to a passing journalist
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
The more I think about it, the more it becomes the stupidest thing any PM of my lifetime has said.
Yes. I cannot think of anything that matches it. Even Truss never said one single thing this idiotic
I too was shocked to learn prime ministers don't write their own speeches. Still, at least it explains why they have speechwriters.
I was shocked to learn prime ministers don’t READ their speeches before making them. Especially on really important controversial subjects
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
I'm surprised that mendacity in a politician is any sort of problem for you - let alone a big one - given your support for Boris Johnson in his pomp.
Because Starmer made such a big thing about offering a “new kind of politics”. Adult and competent and serious and honest. Turns out he’s the biggest liar of them all
It’s stomach turning
According to the BBC report I have just googled, he simply says he regrets the phrase used, because he didn't realise it would be compared with Powell's Rivers of Blood speech.
So he's not saying he disagrees with anything he said, just that he was a bit stupid for using the Island of Strangers phrase. Which I admit I didn't know was similar to something in the Rivers of Blood speech, but then I'm not a politician.
So I'm not sure it shows any deep mendacity or flip-flopness, but it does show deep incompetence as you might expect the leader of the labour party and their speech writing team to have some knowledge of British political history
No. He’s also disavowing other parts of it. Like mass immigration causing “incalculable damage”
His excuse is literally that HE DIDN’T READ THE SPEECH beforehand - one of the most important speeches of his prime ministerial career to date - and he didn’t realise what he was saying as he said it
The first is a lie and the second is another lie. He’s a grossly incompetent fool who constantly lies to get himself out of trouble, but only makes it worse
He can’t even lie with a bit of charisma like Boris. He just flat out lies while lecturing everyone else. It’s rebarbative
As I said upthread, it’s worth reading the whole article. He repudiates a huge amount of everything that he’s done, not just “the speech”. It is supposed to be a sympathetic portrayal (I think) but he just comes across as a very uncertain, very apologetic, very troubled soul. As a portrait of leadership, it couldn’t be worse.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
I don’t believe anyone should be prosecuted for this. Free speech and all that. I’m dubious you can incite violence against an army at war
However it is the optics that are shocking. Seeing 50,000 people chanting “death to X” is seriously disturbing and grotesque. It simply IS. Have you seen the footage? It’s grim. It wouid be grim if they were shouting “death to the Russian army!”
Huge crowds calling “death to anyone” is ugly and inhuman - and this at a music festival once dedicated to peace? Ugh
It’s doing terrible damage to the Glastonbury brand - it’s going viral worldwide - which is why they are now hastily trying to make amends. I can see serious problems with their corporate sponsors and also for the BBC
Good
I think I agree with that, the phrase itself falls within freedom of speech. But people chant and sing things in big crowds they wouldn't normally think of saying themselves.
Visited Veliko Tarnovo a few weeks ago, as well as Plovdiv and Sofia. VT has a nice Ottoman old town and a nice fortress, although it is a bit more recently reconstructed than they like to let on.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
No you don't. You want Ukrainian rule to be restored. That is completely separate from wanting Russian soldiers to die. It's not politic to say it because it's not healthy to wish it. If you wish it, you've lost the point.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
I don’t believe anyone should be prosecuted for this. Free speech and all that. I’m dubious you can incite violence against an army at war
However it is the optics that are shocking. Seeing 50,000 people chanting “death to X” is seriously disturbing and grotesque. It simply IS. Have you seen the footage? It’s grim. It wouid be grim if they were shouting “death to the Russian army!”
Huge crowds calling “death to anyone” is ugly and inhuman - and this at a music festival once dedicated to peace? Ugh
It’s doing terrible damage to the Glastonbury brand - it’s going viral worldwide - which is why they are now hastily trying to make amends. I can see serious problems with their corporate sponsors and also for the BBC
Good
The sad thing is these artists are non-entities, but are doing this to get the clicks, drive the outrage. Kneecap have been trying for years with various stunts and still not a big band, until the latest stuff their videos YouTube outside of 2 songs had bugger all views, yesterday they get 1 million people watching a stream.
On top of the death to the IDF, Ranty McRanty Face was ranting about a very famous music promoter who has raised billions for charity from LiveAid to AIDs awareness to Amnesty International, and all the crowd cheered along with the antisemetic rant. Not that long ago such people were held up as examples of rich people doing good.
Does everyone agree the next Labour leader is probably either Rayner or Streeting? I can't think of any other likely candidates atm.
Yes unless Burnham returns to Parliament, of the 2 Labour members probably elect Rayner so Blairites will want to keep Starmer in post for now
Streeting is well placed, provided it never comes out that he's behind some of the anti-Starmer leaking going on recently
He's a bit of an idiot. He says he wants Ukraine to win the war but would never think of calling for the death of Russian soldiers. Really? How else does he think Ukraine is going to win?
I must have missed Thatcher 'calling for the death' of Argentinian soldiers. You can take regrettable but necessary military actions without behaving like a shandy-fuelled Bartholomew Roberts.
We'll, of course politicians don't say that sort of thing, because it isn't politic.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
No you don't. You want Ukrainian rule to be restored. That is completely separate from wanting Russian soldiers to die. It's not politic to say it because it's not healthy to wish it. If you wish it, you've lost the point.
No, I want Russian soldiers to die. I could want all sorts of other things more, like a Russian withdrawal, but Ukrainian victory turns on them being able to kill Russians. I just see it as being honest with myself. And it's better than the alternative, which would be Russia carrying out genocide across the whole country
When did Wes Streeting become a spokesman for Hamas ?
Wes Streeting is the recipient of large amounts of donations from private medical firms and Tufton Street. Even by the standards of the 2020s, he is the most obviously beholden. If 55 Tufton Street tell him to back Hamas, he'll back Hamas
That's daft of him. The really juicy donations happen in the future, like with Laurence Ellison and Blair. And they can't touch you for it. Almost touchingly naive to get donations upfront and declared.
Comments
Last year they were 'volunteers' so they 'know people'.
Calm doon, there's a long day ahead.
It really is one of the last pockets of untouched wilderness in Europe. Lots of bears and wolves. Lynx. Superb birdlife. Incredible variety of flora - 60% of Europe’s flower species can be found here
It feels more like a remote place in the Caucasus than “Europe”
That was before he played high stakes poker with Hitler over the fate of Bulgaria's Jews - and lost his life a a result. But he saved 50,000 lives for his own.
Spielberg wanted to make his life story - but his very aged widow refused to co-operate. She is now dead, so the story might yet get told.
I have to say that if there are rumblings of revolt in Labour after the 2026 elections, I wonder how much energy he’ll expend in trying to cling on.
A Czech, settled in Britain, and a huge part of our cultural life for decades.
FWIW, I still think Kemi a better alternative than any of the options listed above. Though she is making so little impression that this is based largely on guesswork.
It's always been a politically contested term - and the legal definitions, which are different for many jurisdictions, aren't very precise either.
I'd agree it doesn't well describe PA, though.
This current trainwreck is a bit like that. Labour has identified the need to reset quickly - to move away from trying to win back reform voters, and move toward trying to form and motivate a coalition of voters who loathe Reform. But to do that properly, they need to ditch Starmer for Rayner. It would appear he doesn't want to be ditched, so you get this ludicrous attempted flip which Olga Korbut couldn't pull off, where Starmer is now sincerely confessing us all what rubbish his previous sincere confessions were.
“So guys, I am cancelling Boomtown and Maiden Voyage, the promoters have been stressing me out for weeks trying to force me to say free Palestine and threatening to cut me from the bill because I won’t say free Palestine and I’m not dealing with the threats and I’m not putting on a fucking hijab.
They’re both basically trying to extort me - by insinuating that I need to say I support Palestine or they will drop me from the gig BUT I would much rather drop them and not associate with anything that has cheap group think bullshit attached to it.
If they want to allow some no-name dj’s to bully them into desecrating the nature of this music ecosystem and make ME the issue - whilst there being absolutely no ethical consumption under capitalism. Then that’s fine.
More thinly veiled racism
And overt antisemitism from the fucking gays for Hamas.
#FUCKPALESTINE”
https://x.com/azealiaslacewig/status/1937664993073262739?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
😶
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3velqy9rzo
Wanting Jenrick because he can counter Kemi's weak spots ignores that he's a thoroughly dodgy character, and the minute he gets the job - if that transpires - the Tories will find that honesty and probity suddenly become issues once again.
In retrospect, the 'release the sausages' moment was more than just a daft slip. It was someone speechifying while advance warning brain was switched off. PMs can't do that. We are still getting used to the fact that Trump can. It doesn't mean anyone else can.
What happened to that @Leon?
Bulgarian vegetables are supposed to be worth writing home about.
Meanwhile it's hot to be outside in Oslo, so while the sun starved Norwegians are all stripping off in the heat, the dog and I have retreated to a Brewdog place indoors, and Mr Dog is just finishing off a 75 NOK doggie burger.
It was clearly a sarcastic remark referencing those idiots who would justify the atrocities of communism with stuff about omelettes and eggs
If that whooshed over your head what can I do?
But of course Starmer DID read this speech. He’s lying. This is one of the most dismal and dismaying things about him. The ease and regularity of his mendacity
He probably lies more often than he tells the truth
Does remind me of a story from many years ago where someone was driving a Silver Shadow around France. A major piece broke and had to be flown out to them to allow them to get home. After a while he was conscious that he had never had a bill for that so, being an honest chap, he contacted the company. The reply? "Sorry sir, but that's impossible, Silver Shadows do not break down."
It’s stomach turning
People have become very used to a bewildering rate of change in leadership, with six Tory leaders (five of them PMs) in less than ten years and maybe a seventh not so far away.
Maybe Labour will take fright at the polls and follow a similar pattern. But we're a fraction under a year into this Government and there's a pretty good chance, with an enormous majority and no real prospect of the Government itself falling, that they'll go the distance with Starmer and that it'll be a pretty settled period in leadership terms.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MqOyvm-gl5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI9t7m_CQzg
'I have not read that book'
That teenage boy that goes camping with Ed Balls might have a shot.
As much as I like Our Ange and feel she'd be effective against everyone's second favourite populist conman, I don't think the Blairites and Spad Industrial Complex will suffer her as leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHXCzC2wGlo
My pal was his best man, unfortunately they were subsequently estranged.
Which the experts said couldn’t be done.
lol. Who would claim that now?
“I applied my forensic skills to not reading the most important speech I’ve made in months. I looked at the title sort of - but then I applied really forensic attention and forensically ignored every word inside. Then forensically I said these words without understanding how they might come across, and now with my deeply forensic skills I can see that this was a mistake, but in a month I might have forensically analysed this and changed my mind again. I don’t what I think at any time. My father was a toolmaker”
So he's not saying he disagrees with anything he said, just that he was a bit stupid for using the Island of Strangers phrase. Which I admit I didn't know was similar to something in the Rivers of Blood speech, but then I'm not a politician.
So I'm not sure it shows any deep mendacity or flip-flopness, but it does show deep incompetence as you might expect the leader of the labour party and their speech writing team to have some knowledge of British political history
https://x.com/timmyvoe/status/1938921905269944662?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
His excuse is literally that HE DIDN’T READ THE SPEECH beforehand - one of the most important speeches of his prime ministerial career to date - and he didn’t realise what he was saying as he said it
The first is a lie and the second is another lie. He’s a grossly incompetent fool who constantly lies to get himself out of trouble, but only makes it worse
He can’t even lie with a bit of charisma like Boris. He just flat out lies while lecturing everyone else. It’s rebarbative
As the temperature in London approaches that of Hades' boiler room, I'm left bemused by some of the anti-Glastonbury rants on here this morning.
I've seen it described it as a "middle class, luvvie, wankfest" - now I don't even know what that means apart from some incoherent venting.
How is Glastonbury any more or less "representative" of modern Britain than Royal Ascot? Ascot had about 286,000 over five days in a corner of Berkshire with different stages and enclosures so it's not really much different. It's also expensive to get into and while there is a slight possibility you can leave with more money than with which you arrived (not if you follow my selections of course), most people spend out on the food, drink and entertainment provided.
You can't win a war without killing the enemy. I see no reason to try to hide that. Joe public should be able to say it. If you support one side in a war, you want enemy soldiers to die.
I’m honestly struggling to think of somewhere that beats here. Perhaps the deep carpathians? But Bulgaria is even poorer. I’ve been to inland Moldova and Montenegro and they can be remote but not like here
If you include Russia to the urals and also the Caucasus then yes there are places in Armenia and Georgia significantly more remote than this - just about. But I don’t really see them as “Europe”
Of course there are much more remote ISLANDS but I’m talking mainland
But if you can do it - bravo. I’ll be impressed
‘May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my country and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory, and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually, I commit my life to him that made me; and may His blessing alight on my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself, and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen.’
For her inaugural ball, she made her own dress. Which was much criticized, though not by my mother.
(You'll find that parts of that biography hard to believe.)
The latest Labourlist poll has Burnham first choice of 29%, then Rayner with 20% then Streeting with a mere 8% only just ahead of Cooper and Lewis on 5%.
After preferences, Burnham gets 57%, Rayner 47% and Streeting only 21%
https://labourlist.org/2025/06/angela-rayner-andy-burnham-labour-leadership-labourlist-survation-poll/
However it is the optics that are shocking. Seeing 50,000 people chanting “death to X” is seriously disturbing and grotesque. It simply IS. Have you seen the footage? It’s grim. It wouid be grim if they were shouting “death to the Russian army!”
Huge crowds calling “death to anyone” is ugly and inhuman - and this at a music festival once dedicated to peace? Ugh
It’s doing terrible damage to the Glastonbury brand - it’s going viral worldwide - which is why they are now hastily trying to make amends. I can see serious problems with their corporate sponsors and also for the BBC
Good
Boris had a reputation as a bounder and a cad, so it was priced in. Farage too. Starmer piously declared himself a clean broom to see off such gutter level politicians, and it turns out, as I said all along, he is just the same.
Visited Veliko Tarnovo a few weeks ago, as well as Plovdiv and Sofia. VT has a nice Ottoman old town and a nice fortress, although it is a bit more recently reconstructed than they like to let on.
On top of the death to the IDF, Ranty McRanty Face was ranting about a very famous music promoter who has raised billions for charity from LiveAid to AIDs awareness to Amnesty International, and all the crowd cheered along with the antisemetic rant. Not that long ago such people were held up as examples of rich people doing good.