Fuck me, I’ve just seen a clip of Marjorie Taylor Green spinning some conspiracy bollocks about the USA not being mentioned in the Book of Revelations. I knew she was seriously mental but this is quite special.
A pedant notes: There's no S - it's the book of Revelation - as revealed to St. John the Divine.
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.
Peruvian politicians actually take cash in paper bags. At least one dropped the bag in a very public place - a cafe, IIRC.
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
And don't tell me, because I know already, this toxic chanting at Glasto is immeasurably worse than all the "burn down their hostels!" stuff from the white race rioters last summer because at least those guys weren't pretending to be all peace and love and kumbaya. They were authentic unlike this bunch of hypocrites. That's why this bothers you so much more than that did.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
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
And don't tell me, because I know already, this toxic chanting at Glasto is immeasurably worse than all the "burn down their hostels!" stuff from the white race rioters last summer because at least those guys weren't pretending to be all peace and love and kumbaya. They were authentic unlike this bunch of hypocrites. That's why this bothers you so much more than that did.
If you can show me 50,000 far right wing people shouting “death to x” at a music festival “dedicated to peace” then you’d have a point. But you can’t show me that because it hasn’t happened
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
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.
You’re assuming he both read and agreed with the apology
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
I suspect that's potentially libellous. Hope Wes isn't reading this.
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
What Britain "actually is" will be different depending on who you ask.
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
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.
A former labour press officer’s take
“And then came “but I don’t want a PM I am asked to feel sorry for, it is almost as though in any difficult situation we hear a snippet of how difficult his life has been or is. It is starting to sound weird”
I hadn’t actually thought of it like that before but now I can’t get it out of my head”
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
It's all nostalgic and romanticised as though turning the clock back to 1955 would somehow make everything "all right". This is why populist parties are doomed to failure - they see the future through the prism of the past rather than as something evolving and to be created and harnassed.
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
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.
I'd agree it doesn't well describe PA, though.
Traitors and fifth columnists is probably closer. Lock them up and throw away the key.
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
Complementary, I think.
Oh god, yes. I usually get that word right as well!
Not much "complimentary" stuff on offer atm for our beleaguered leader.
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
There are things to hate about modern Britain as well as things to admire.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
That's such a tendentious framing. Did people who wanted desperately to get the Tories out "hate what Britain actually is"?
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.
A former labour press officer’s take
“And then came “but I don’t want a PM I am asked to feel sorry for, it is almost as though in any difficult situation we hear a snippet of how difficult his life has been or is. It is starting to sound weird”
I hadn’t actually thought of it like that before but now I can’t get it out of my head”
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
There are things to hate about modern Britain as well as things to admire.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
Get the definite impression that there are those that hate almost everything about modern Britain. Though tbf they might occasionally squeeze out a constipated 'not as bad as foreign country X'.
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.
Of course there's some truth in what you say. As there is in my take. Neither of us are in the habit of talking complete and utter codswallop, let's be fair. The sentiments are complimentary not at direct odds.
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
Yes you have made this point a number of times.
Perhaps I should simply give the link. The bit at 18 mins 25 secs is IMO the standout but it's best to listen to the whole thing.
All the talk of Trump or Trump Jnr will run next time.
Musk certainly won't be spending $250m again, I wonder how many of the other tech bros and finance types who believed that the state was spending too much and needed to be cut back only to be faced with Trump Spend-a-thon bill will also be keeping their hands in their pockets next time around.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
There are things to hate about modern Britain as well as things to admire.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
The first sentence would have been true at pretty much any point in British history.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
I think it's more complex and situational than that. I think Reform voters tend to dislike intensely an image of what Britain has become. Shorthand for that might be: 'The Britain we would be if Glastonbury culture was genuine, all pervading and compulsory'.
Most of the middle class can and do actually choose their culture, affinities and circles and do so highly selectively. I do. Most PBers will too. It comprises family, work, personal past, religious affiliation (which took up this morning with unalloyed delight in a building 1000 years old and doing lunch for 200), culture, arts, community and so on for ever. In my world Glastonbury may as well happen on Jupiter, even though I have friends who go often; and the last time I saw one of them was in a cathedral.
Britain is complicated. Reform supporters should get out more.
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
And don't tell me, because I know already, this toxic chanting at Glasto is immeasurably worse than all the "burn down their hostels!" stuff from the white race rioters last summer because at least those guys weren't pretending to be all peace and love and kumbaya. They were authentic unlike this bunch of hypocrites. That's why this bothers you so much more than that did.
If you can show me 50,000 far right wing people shouting “death to x” at a music festival “dedicated to peace” then you’d have a point. But you can’t show me that because it hasn’t happened
You’re not having a good day. Have a lie down
You aren't so dim as to not grasp my (clear and straightforward) point so I'll take this as an "ok guv, fair cop" and move on.
I wonder if Rod will address Israel/Palestine today? Or will he be scared off by the controversy over Vylan and Knee?
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
There are things to hate about modern Britain as well as things to admire.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
Get the definite impression that there are those that hate almost everything about modern Britain. Though tbf they might occasionally squeeze out a constipated 'not as bad as foreign country X'.
Well there have always been people who hate everything about Britain.
Traditionally these people have been on the political left.
There are now some on the political right (ignoring the aspect that much of Reform's ideology was once traditional Labour).
So we have a similar dichotomy as with populists.
Our populists are in touch with the people, their populists are deceiving charlatans.
Our haters are victims who need sympathy, their haters are ignorant bigots.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
It's all nostalgic and romanticised as though turning the clock back to 1955 would somehow make everything "all right". This is why populist parties are doomed to failure - they see the future through the prism of the past rather than as something evolving and to be created and harnassed.
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
Not wanting rampant crime and illegal immigration isn't romanticised nostalgia. That's literally what's driving voters of all types to Reform. Labour (and the Tories) have failed to get a grip on either of these and the Tories already paid for it, Labour will pay for it in 2029. Being told that crime and illegal immigrants are now just "part of modern Britain" is patronising and complacent. There are plenty of modern societies that don't put up with the crime and re able to deport illegals, the UK government is choosing not to because it offends their liberal sensibilities.
Another flamboyant lawyer might provide an extra data point. Here’s a description of Disraeli in 1833. … It happened that very night D'Israeli was going on in that extraordinary manner at Mrs. Norton's. I think no man would go on in that odd manner, wear green velvet trowsers & ruffles, without having odd feelings. He ought to be kicked. I hate the look of the fellow...
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
There are things to hate about modern Britain as well as things to admire.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
The first sentence would have been true at pretty much any point in British history.
Indeed.
What we have though are people who do not accept that some changes can be bad and others who cannot accept that some changes can be good.
That will also be pretty much true at any point in British history.
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.
I'd agree it doesn't well describe PA, though.
Traitors and fifth columnists is probably closer. Lock them up and throw away the key.
As I noted a few days ago, the old term “subversives” probably fits the bill.
Nice use of the words 'in parliament'. A casual reader will form the impression that the speaker has invited Reza Pahlavi to address the assembled lords and commons in Westminster Hall.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
All the talk of Trump or Trump Jnr will run next time.
Musk certainly won't be spending $250m again, I wonder how many of the other tech bros and finance types who believed that the state was spending too much and needed to be cut back only to be faced with Trump Spend-a-thon bill will also be keeping their hands in their pockets next time around.
Squillionaire tech bros will pocket the tax savings and shelter behind Trump's tariffs against foreigners considering digital taxes on American firms.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
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)
St John the Divine? That was very forward looking of him
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
And don't tell me, because I know already, this toxic chanting at Glasto is immeasurably worse than all the "burn down their hostels!" stuff from the white race rioters last summer because at least those guys weren't pretending to be all peace and love and kumbaya. They were authentic unlike this bunch of hypocrites. That's why this bothers you so much more than that did.
If you can show me 50,000 far right wing people shouting “death to x” at a music festival “dedicated to peace” then you’d have a point. But you can’t show me that because it hasn’t happened
You’re not having a good day. Have a lie down
You aren't so dim as to not grasp my (clear and straightforward) point so I'll take this as an "ok guv, fair cop" and move on.
I wonder if Rod will address Israel/Palestine today? Or will he be scared off by the controversy over Vylan and Knee?
Why would he? 90% of artists steer well clear of this shite whatever they think about it. Get on the stage, sing your songs, and fuck off.
The weather forecast hasn't turned out as expected. I'm at an airfield in the central Midlands and it's very cloudy and about 21 degrees, nothing like as hot and sunny as it was supposed to be.
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
I suspect that's potentially libellous. Hope Wes isn't reading this.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
It's all nostalgic and romanticised as though turning the clock back to 1955 would somehow make everything "all right". This is why populist parties are doomed to failure - they see the future through the prism of the past rather than as something evolving and to be created and harnassed.
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
Not wanting rampant crime and illegal immigration isn't romanticised nostalgia. That's literally what's driving voters of all types to Reform. Labour (and the Tories) have failed to get a grip on either of these and the Tories already paid for it, Labour will pay for it in 2029. Being told that crime and illegal immigrants are now just "part of modern Britain" is patronising and complacent. There are plenty of modern societies that don't put up with the crime and re able to deport illegals, the UK government is choosing not to because it offends their liberal sensibilities.
Quite. The same is true on economic growth. We are told that we must live with decline and our days as a powerhouse economy are behind us. Yet Argentina (who I grant you are a new world country, yet still a Westernised economy with many of the same issues that we have) has grown its GDP faster than China's in 2025 so far:
*I am aware that the link may trigger some, sadly the story seems to have escaped the Guardian
The moribund left are hanging on to the depressing status quo and telling everyone that life is shit, has always been shit, and will always he shit. F**k off and let someone else have the ball if that's the best you can offer.
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
It's all nostalgic and romanticised as though turning the clock back to 1955 would somehow make everything "all right". This is why populist parties are doomed to failure - they see the future through the prism of the past rather than as something evolving and to be created and harnassed.
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
Why is 1955 always chosen by those making this type of comment
The weather forecast hasn't turned out as expected. I'm at an airfield in the central Midlands and it's very cloudy and about 21 degrees, nothing like as hot and sunny as it was supposed to be.
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.
Exact engine spec. for my records please.
It's a poser car. Resprayed in blue with white stripe and RR leather upholstery. Can't give you exact spec , cos I don't know that, but t is a Rover 3.95 engine (so not the 7l) , Jag running gear, Southern Road craft chassis.
Giving lots of 10 year old boys and their Dads a thrill by sitting in it and starting it.
I don't really see the issue either. Why shouldn't they hear what the man has to say? The Shah was very unpopular, but his regime wasn't anything like the Mullahs.
The weather forecast hasn't turned out as expected. I'm at an airfield in the central Midlands and it's very cloudy and about 21 degrees, nothing like as hot and sunny as it was supposed to be.
Maybe our enemies are testing their sun dimming weapons.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
Do you want to read your last sentence again? If those 3 are the best educated at Cambridge you’ve just removed implied you are not as good as them and I’ve seen 2 year olds with a better grasp of a situation than those 3.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
Do you want to read your last sentence again? If those 3 are the best educated at Cambridge you’ve just removed implied you are not as good as them and I’ve seen 2 year olds with a better grasp of a situation than those 3.
It was a joke.
Top end Cambridge educated lawyers.
Ken Clarke, Geoffrey Cox, Geoffrey Howe, and many many others.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
Do you want to read your last sentence again? If those 3 are the best educated at Cambridge you’ve just removed implied you are not as good as them and I’ve seen 2 year olds with a better grasp of a situation than those 3.
It was a joke.
Top end Cambridge educated lawyers.
Ken Clarke, Geoffrey Cox, Geoffrey Howe, and many many others.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
Do you want to read your last sentence again? If those 3 are the best educated at Cambridge you’ve just removed implied you are not as good as them and I’ve seen 2 year olds with a better grasp of a situation than those 3.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
Seems a fairly unexceptionable point to me.
Are you suggesting that it is settled issue that Radiohead live aren't very good?
If the rumours are true and he’s partnering Verstappen next year, it’s a good job for Antonelli that Verstappen is such a modest, reasonable, forgiving and patient sort of bloke.
This is like voting for Starmer and then spending your time saying he's the worst ever PM. What did Musk think he was getting when he supported Trump?
He thought he would be co-President, and his money would keep Trump in line.
Like so many people who put his faith in Trump, he's ended up disappointed. Indeed, I'd go further, he's managed to alienate his existing customer base and install a President actively hostile to his business.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
Seems a fairly unexceptionable point to me.
Are you suggesting that it is settled issue that Radiohead live aren't very good?
Radiohead are above such petty estimations.
I was referring to the presence of duffers in city firms, of course.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
Seems a fairly unexceptionable point to me.
Are you suggesting that it is settled issue that Radiohead live aren't very good?
Radiohead are above such petty estimations.
I was referring to the presence of duffers in city firms, of course.
Glad we cleared that up. I was a bit worried for your ability to post for a moment....
I am surprised the article got past TSE filter....suggesting plenty of lawyers even a big firms are a bit shit seems a bit like claiming Radiohead aren't the best live act.
I would never refuse to publish a Cyclefree header.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
Do you want to read your last sentence again? If those 3 are the best educated at Cambridge you’ve just removed implied you are not as good as them and I’ve seen 2 year olds with a better grasp of a situation than those 3.
It was a joke.
Top end Cambridge educated lawyers.
Ken Clarke, Geoffrey Cox, Geoffrey Howe, and many many others.
So a list of top end lawyers and a list of bell end lawyers.
This is like voting for Starmer and then spending your time saying he's the worst ever PM. What did Musk think he was getting when he supported Trump?
He thought he would be co-President, and his money would keep Trump in line.
Like so many people who put his faith in Trump, he's ended up disappointed. Indeed, I'd go further, he's managed to alienate his existing customer base and install a President actively hostile to his business.
I’m old enough to recall the odd PBer saying he’d played a blinder in backing Trump..
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
The trajectory we are on is the NHS, benefits and paying the interest on loans is going to eat up a far large percentage of the overall size of the state if we don't get any real growth. It goes pop at some point.
This is like voting for Starmer and then spending your time saying he's the worst ever PM. What did Musk think he was getting when he supported Trump?
He thought he would be co-President, and his money would keep Trump in line.
Like so many people who put his faith in Trump, he's ended up disappointed. Indeed, I'd go further, he's managed to alienate his existing customer base and install a President actively hostile to his business.
I’m old enough to recall the odd PBer saying he’d played a blinder in backing Trump..
It is tempting to say Musk wanted tax breaks and those sweet, sweet Nasa contracts but maybe he was simply intoxicated by proximity to power.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Matthew Syed is right as usual.
Also, most British people aren't concerned about foreign wars. They care mostly about what's going on in the UK.
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”
The mountains of Bulgaria are almost mystical in their beauty. Take a cable car from Sofia up the Vitosha massif and then do a two day hike via the seven lakes and on to the Rila monastery. It is utterly magnificent. Also, the Bulgarian white brotherhood regard it as a sacred pilgrimage. Will you go to the Rhodope monastery?
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.
Exact engine spec. for my records please.
It's a poser car. Resprayed in blue with white stripe and RR leather upholstery. Can't give you exact spec , cos I don't know that, but t is a Rover 3.95 engine (so not the 7l) , Jag running gear, Southern Road craft chassis.
Giving lots of 10 year old boys and their Dads a thrill by sitting in it and starting it.
The 4.6 from a 2nd gen RR will (more or less) bolt straight in. '99 or later will have the Bosch Motronic system from the E38 7 Series. There's 218hp.
You can do it in a weekend if you don't care how many fingers you destroy.
TVR pushrods are a worthy upgrade. The originals are built to the original fuck-it-that'll-do BL spec. They sap power because they are so bendy the valve timing goes to shit at high revs.
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.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
It is true, but by the same token people also need politicians who have the conviction and leadership to speak to them on these topics. Our current political class shy away from them, because they fear electoral oblivion, but this is because they don’t have the b*lls, frankly, to speak plainly and call it out in a way people can understand.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
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.
From my perspective, Starmer's best asset is not being Angela Rayner.
Anyway, I must be off. Still mildly miffed a 45 free bet missed by a whisker when Norris finally decided to qualify properly. Humbug.
At least Rayner might be able to give the impression that she actually believes in something. I suspect I’d disagree with a lot of what she’d say, but at least that would generate an honest political debate, rather than SKS trying to tell us he believes in whatever he thinks is useful at that moment.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Matthew Syed is right as usual.
Also, most British people aren't concerned about foreign wars. They care mostly about what's going on in the UK.
Syed is wrong. He absolves political leadership of the primary duty of political leadership. Which is to lead.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
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.
Sounds like a lot of idiots going around, those three idiots combined would struggle to sweep the streets. Talentless clowns. How the absolute F*** has Cooper been there so long , her constituents must have the IQ's of budgies. She is absolutely useless.
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.
Exact engine spec. for my records please.
It's a poser car. Resprayed in blue with white stripe and RR leather upholstery. Can't give you exact spec , cos I don't know that, but t is a Rover 3.95 engine (so not the 7l) , Jag running gear, Southern Road craft chassis.
Giving lots of 10 year old boys and their Dads a thrill by sitting in it and starting it.
The 4.6 from a 2nd gen RR will (more or less) bolt straight in. '99 or later will have the Bosch Motronic system from the E38 7 Series. There's 218hp.
You can do it in a weekend if you don't care how many fingers you destroy.
TVR pushrods are a worthy upgrade. The originals are built to the original fuck-it-that'll-do BL spec. They sap power because they are so bendy the valve timing goes to shit at high revs.
We seem to have a warp in the forum-sphere - stray PistonHeads content detected.
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
And don't tell me, because I know already, this toxic chanting at Glasto is immeasurably worse than all the "burn down their hostels!" stuff from the white race rioters last summer because at least those guys weren't pretending to be all peace and love and kumbaya. They were authentic unlike this bunch of hypocrites. That's why this bothers you so much more than that did.
Were there posters suggesting those riots were nothing to worry about? I don't think they were. But I do think you're right to highlight the equivalence.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
Like all things that go wrong, it's a confluence of factors.
Being a politician is shit. Therefore it doesn't attract the talent it used to. Therefore, we get shit leaders. Therefore the world gets a little worse, and we trust politicians a little less.
Rinse and repeat until we get someone really awful
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
Like all things that go wrong, it's a confluence of factors.
Being a politician is shit. Therefore it doesn't attract the talent it used to. Therefore, we get shit leaders. Therefore the world gets a little worse, and we trust politicians a little less.
Rinse and repeat until we get someone really awful
It’s funny because Reform claim they are the patriotic party but my impression is that Reform voters seem to hate what Britain actually is. Hence this almost irrational desperation to return to the Britain of their youth through the rose-tined glasses.
It's all nostalgic and romanticised as though turning the clock back to 1955 would somehow make everything "all right". This is why populist parties are doomed to failure - they see the future through the prism of the past rather than as something evolving and to be created and harnassed.
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
Why is 1955 always chosen by those making this type of comment
They know 1955 was when the special ones were born
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
Like all things that go wrong, it's a confluence of factors.
Being a politician is shit. Therefore it doesn't attract the talent it used to. Therefore, we get shit leaders. Therefore the world gets a little worse, and we trust politicians a little less.
Rinse and repeat until we get someone really awful
Indeed.
It’s just farcical when the clowns think the problem is audience.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
On a day when a chesty cold renders me useless for much apart from lounging on the sofa - and in an era when streaming has killed the concept of 'what's on the telly' - congratulations once again to whichever visionary put the county championship on youtube. I am watching Derbyshire's pleasantly-executed-but-charmingly-low-quality coverage of the match against Lanashire from (I think) the charmingly low-key Queen's Park, Chesterfield, unfolding to the apparent cheerful indifference of an audience of maybe a couple of thousand. I love that this is what our main summer sport looks like. Derbyshire bowler Blair Tickner (sp?) has a cherishably ridiculous run up, which starts with a little knees-raised-elbows-out run-on-the-spot to no apparent effect. It is the most absorbing thing being broadcast in England right now. Keaton Jennings is approaching a century. So say the excitement being generated by this is palpable would be a wild, wild overstatement.
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
Thought Matthew Syed's piece in the Times today deserves wider circulation. He hits the nail on the head.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Yes and no. Certainly there is little attempt to explain honestly the situation, $15bn black hole nonsense when you borrow more than that in a month. However, the economy hasn't been growing for years, until it does, you are never going to escape the cycle even if you do cut back the state somewhat.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
I agree this is 'yes and no'. Syed isn't blaming 'hopeless leaders or weak PMs', he isn't blaming himself as he is one of the enlightened, he isn't blaming his readers who are clearly 'we' and not 'they' and also amonmg the illuminati. He can't point the finger at PBers who are as well.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The People have forfeit the confidence of The Political Class
The bastards
The Head Count are always revolting.
Many a sitting MP will be echoing Stephen Pound's aperçu come the election
Comments
On Patmos
(Psychotic pedantry TM)
That’s proper incompetence.
Born in Gateshead. That's enough for me.
You’re not having a good day. Have a lie down
As for SKS, I'm not sure if I've made this point before but he was very good on Desert Island Discs. I'd recommend SDS sufferers listen to it (it's available on BBC Sounds) because I reckon it might take the edge off.
“And then came “but I don’t want a PM I am asked to feel sorry for, it is almost as though in any difficult situation we hear a snippet of how difficult his life has been or is. It is starting to sound weird”
I hadn’t actually thought of it like that before but now I can’t get it out of my head”
https://x.com/forwardnotback/status/1938947088336990313?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Parties which create optimism about the future will always beat those who are only optimistic about the past.
Not much "complimentary" stuff on offer atm for our beleaguered leader.
Likewise with the Britain of earlier decades.
And these will vary on how they affect individual people and individual demographics.
Others diminish in stature.
There's not much doubt that Starmer is of the second variety.
Though tbf they might occasionally squeeze out a constipated 'not as bad as foreign country X'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000pdqz
https://x.com/Imran_posts/status/1939284814881755273
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/29/elon-musk-calls-trumps-big-bill-utterly-insane-and-destructive-as-senate-debates
Musk certainly won't be spending $250m again, I wonder how many of the other tech bros and finance types who believed that the state was spending too much and needed to be cut back only to be faced with Trump Spend-a-thon bill will also be keeping their hands in their pockets next time around.
Most of the middle class can and do actually choose their culture, affinities and circles and do so highly selectively. I do. Most PBers will too. It comprises family, work, personal past, religious affiliation (which took up this morning with unalloyed delight in a building 1000 years old and doing lunch for 200), culture, arts, community and so on for ever. In my world Glastonbury may as well happen on Jupiter, even though I have friends who go often; and the last time I saw one of them was in a cathedral.
Britain is complicated. Reform supporters should get out more.
Anyone who lights up on a beach or in a public park in France will be breaking the law from Sunday.
I wonder if Rod will address Israel/Palestine today? Or will he be scared off by the controversy over Vylan and Knee?
Traditionally these people have been on the political left.
There are now some on the political right (ignoring the aspect that much of Reform's ideology was once traditional Labour).
So we have a similar dichotomy as with populists.
Our populists are in touch with the people, their populists are deceiving charlatans.
Our haters are victims who need sympathy, their haters are ignorant bigots.
Another flamboyant lawyer might provide an extra data point.
Here’s a description of Disraeli in 1833.
… It happened that very night D'Israeli was going on in that extraordinary manner at Mrs. Norton's. I think no man would go on in that odd manner, wear green velvet trowsers & ruffles, without having odd feelings. He ought to be kicked. I hate the look of the fellow...
What we have though are people who do not accept that some changes can be bad and others who cannot accept that some changes can be good.
That will also be pretty much true at any point in British history.
It's fine, my tongue was firmly in my cheek with my header yesterday, sometimes I do not have the time nor the energy to write a header so I'll put up a fun thread but the numbers do not lie, lawyers win general elections from opposition.
Anyhoo Jenrick's secret weapon isn't that he's a lawyer, he's a Cambridge educated lawyer like Richard Burgon and Suella Braverman, who are the best of the best.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/06/25/argentinas-gdp-growth-larger-than-chinas-in-first-three-months-of-2025/
*I am aware that the link may trigger some, sadly the story seems to have escaped the Guardian
The moribund left are hanging on to the depressing status quo and telling everyone that life is shit, has always been shit, and will always he shit. F**k off and let someone else have the ball if that's the best you can offer.
An MP has booked a room for a meeting
set to address British MPs in Parliament is true but the casual reader would interpret it as a speech to there whole House or something
Giving lots of 10 year old boys and their Dads a thrill by sitting in it and starting it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14815677/Sun-weather-weapons-Russia-Putin-clouds-minister.html
Top end Cambridge educated lawyers.
Ken Clarke, Geoffrey Cox, Geoffrey Howe, and many many others.
Like so many people who put his faith in Trump, he's ended up disappointed. Indeed, I'd go further, he's managed to alienate his existing customer base and install a President actively hostile to his business.
I was referring to the presence of duffers in city firms, of course.
"Our only chance is for more people — pundits, politicians, informed voters — to stop pussyfooting around and call out the root cause of the crisis in democracy. It isn’t hopeless leaders or weak PMs but the denialism and entitlement of the people who put them there. The more we make this case, explain it, expound it, the higher the probability that the delusion will be exposed and the electorate will come to see what was true all along. Fairies don’t exist at the bottom of the garden, state payouts can’t keep rising faster than growth (any more than rights can keep outpacing responsibilities) and no matter how much you shut your eyes and wish it were so, two plus two will never equal five."
As I am here I should also add that Palestine is nowhere near the most pressing issue facing this country regardless of how many Islamists we elect to parliament or how many trendies parade around in their black and white scarves.
Providing rent free accommodation in their heads, 24/366, is rather generous.
I am not sure the electorate are close to wanting to hear the truth though. See the reaction to the suggestion at the GE that perhaps we shouldn't send quite so many kids to university...and now the WFA or benefit cuts, when the pension went up more than the WFA cut and the benefit cuts would effect people but aren't that large in terms of the overall budgets.
The trajectory we are on is the NHS, benefits and paying the interest on loans is going to eat up a far large percentage of the overall size of the state if we don't get any real growth. It goes pop at some point.
Also, most British people aren't concerned about foreign wars. They care mostly about what's going on in the UK.
Will you go to the Rhodope monastery?
You can do it in a weekend if you don't care how many fingers you destroy.
TVR pushrods are a worthy upgrade. The originals are built to the original fuck-it-that'll-do BL spec. They sap power because they are so bendy the valve timing goes to shit at high revs.
The political class don’t get a free pass here.
What's left? Some other rather unnamed people who are a bit dim, entitled and in denial. Gosh.
It seems to me that dealing with unreality and getting people to where they are not very willing to go is exactly what the claim to legitimate leadership is about. Most of us don't think we are up to it, at PM/CoE level. Those that are there are making that claim to leadership. Syed absolves them too fast. I cannot see how else his wish can be fulfilled except by outstanding leadership.
The other was something to do with Ireland.
Being a politician is shit. Therefore it doesn't attract the talent it used to. Therefore, we get shit leaders. Therefore the world gets a little worse, and we trust politicians a little less.
Rinse and repeat until we get someone really awful
It’s just farcical when the clowns think the problem is audience.
Derbyshire bowler Blair Tickner (sp?) has a cherishably ridiculous run up, which starts with a little knees-raised-elbows-out run-on-the-spot to no apparent effect. It is the most absorbing thing being broadcast in England right now.
Keaton Jennings is approaching a century. So say the excitement being generated by this is palpable would be a wild, wild overstatement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33514nryy1o
"Glastonbury 'appalled' by Bob Vylan IDF comments"