I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Good morning everybody.
And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified. Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
I am a Christian and also don't like American style Evangelicalism, but it is very much part of the MAGA appeal. The support is mutual, with Evangelicalism there boosting MAGA and vice versa.
I am sure that you remember my header in October '24 on how they are linked, but for others:
Yes - a good piece, but in my view describing only a segment of American-style Evangelicalism, ie that part which supplies much of Trump's support base - the televangelists who drove into politics supporting Reagan (eg charismatics like Pat Robertson, fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, and their predecessors before them). Even Trump's spiritual advisor is an evangelical entrepreneur who had a private jet, bought with tax-exempt money by her ministry.
Theologically imo it's an Evangelicalism culturally captured by consumerism and love of money and power; the USA needs it because they need a theology which justifies their wealth, and keeping it.
But that misses out most of "American style Evangelicalism", and I dispute that definition.
The Martin Luther King tradition is far more important imo, which is bottom-up and about liberation, not top down and about money and power (and often sex), in a religious showbusiness setting. That's leaving aside King's personal failings, which somebody will mention if I do not.
Plus there are any number of other American-style evangelicalisms, starting with the Ron Sider / World Vision type. That's what 9000 Protestant denominations does for you. But I'll stop there.
It's an interesting discussion. While most people are born into their religion and take it fairly unquestioned, many are converts including myself. Evangelicalism is explicitly about converting lost souls.
There are thousands of Christian sects, but why people choose one over another is interesting. Sometimes simply geography or personal acquaintance, but also people do tend to choose a sect that aligns with other beliefs including political ones. The success of American Evangelicalism is that it embraces consumerism and showmanship. Others find a home that is very different. My own church is very strong on social action as a manifestation of faith (hence we have several elderly members with arrests for "Terrorism".
Vance is an interesting one, converting to a very orthodox Catholicism. I see this as a closeness to top down authoritarianism and the power of the Establishment, old and new.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
I don't that's quite right.
For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs. For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer. The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.
Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.
This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment. Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades. We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration. As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.
With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.
Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.
Charlie Kirk assassinated and it was absolutely definitely positively radical left traitors wot did it Trump whips up rage against the libs More political violence Trump declares Marshall law and reigns until his heart pump expires
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it.
In all seriousness, what do you expect a former President to say after the horrific, shocking and public murder of a fairly significant political figure?
Look, anyone who knows anything about Charlie Kirk knows the bloke was hardly Ghandi - he was a divisive character and there is irony in some of his past statements around gun control in the past (astonishingly callous stuff after a school shooting that a few deaths are a price worth paying for the freedom to bear arms). But now is hardly the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects; it would simply inflame tensions when that's the last thing that is needed.
That's a fair challenge.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, now is not the right time, and it would definitely have been the wrong time for Obama to say this.
Emotions mean it simply won't be heard well even if as you say it gathers more attention than it would at another time.
I disagree. Trump has obtained a chunk of his leverage by saying the wrong things at the right time, and shaming his opponents into silence.
It's a time to speak clearly, especially in the USA but also here. We have movements wanting to steal our democracy, and in Government in the USA, by driving a politics of loathing. It won't stop unless we oppose it.
Charlie Kirk assassinated and it was absolutely definitely positively radical left traitors wot did it Trump whips up rage against the libs More political violence Trump declares Marshall law and reigns until his heart pump expires
Get with the story. Yesterday evening it was a trans person who did it. At least, according to some on Twix.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Parrotting the Farage line again
I thought as a Christian you would uphold the highest standards of integrity, and be appalled at the connection with Epstein and Mandelson but sadly your right wing leanings seem to be more important
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
I don't that's quite right.
For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs. For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer. The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.
Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.
This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment. Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades. We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration. As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.
With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.
Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.
There’s something else to consider. When Gordon Brown organised the 3G mobile frequency auction, he was warned by the UCL mathematicians employed to design it, that it optimised for cost only, not overall benefit.
Sure enough, companies dropped out of auction. The high prices caused a retrenchment in the industry, substantial job loses. The result was slower adoption.
The low price of drugs and lots of tax on companies is one part of the overall value to the U.K.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
You can abhor Charlie Kirk & his beliefs and unequivocally condemn murder. You can do both. It shouldn’t be hard. It’s what grown up, civilized, tolerant people do.
We should condemn political violence, even against people we find abominable, unless we are prepared to trust the judgement of every violent individual as to who the villains are.
We can believe this and express sympathy for the victim's families without retroactively lionizing their politics.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
He's not a politician, he's not capable of offering political leadership and he knows it, but he stayed in the Corbyn cabinet and became leader because he thought someone had to save Labour from the Corbynites and he couldn't see anyone else who could do it.
I expect he would have been pretty happy being attorney general during the Blair government, but he's well out of his depth and there's no life raft in view.
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
I suspect Mandelson will go after Trump's visit, but personally I'm not sure he should. He's made a clear error in loyalty to someone who proved to be a wrong 'un, but he may still be the best choice of ambassador. I know him slightly - he's of a different strand of Labour from me, but has a clear view, which I feel is in short supply at the moment.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
I don't that's quite right.
For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs. For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer. The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.
Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.
This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment. Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades. We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration. As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.
With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.
Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.
There’s something else to consider. When Gordon Brown organised the 3G mobile frequency auction, he was warned by the UCL mathematicians employed to design it, that it optimised for cost only, not overall benefit.
Sure enough, companies dropped out of auction. The high prices caused a retrenchment in the industry, substantial job loses. The result was slower adoption.
The low price of drugs and lots of tax on companies is one part of the overall value to the U.K.
Yes, thought at the time (and have ever since) that was a massive economic error, which destroyed what was the then UK leadership of a global industry.
In effect, it was another means of prioritising day to day government spending over investment. Which has been our besetting sin for the last three decades.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
Couldn't you make the case that the NHS is abusing a monopsony position to pay artificially low prices?
No-one wants the NHS to pay US pharma prices, but perhaps it's been a bit too effective at driving prices down.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
A Reform government, right now, would be as shambolic as Boris’, and it would only bring discredit to the political right.
A few years from now, preferably after a period in Opposition, they might be credible.
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
I suspect Mandelson will go after Trump's visit, but personally I'm not sure he should. He's made a clear error in loyalty to someone who proved to be a wrong 'un, but he may still be the best choice of ambassador. I know him slightly - he's of a different strand of Labour from me, but has a clear view, which I feel is in short supply at the moment.
Depends on how much of this he disclosed while being better for the role. You cannot take the risk that someone else has more on him making him compromised. It's the whole purpose of vetting, admit to all the skeletons and you are ok.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
I don't that's quite right.
For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs. For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer. The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.
Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.
This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment. Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades. We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration. As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.
With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.
Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.
Two different issues, I still think. Chopping and changing regulation, employment law/tax, tax breaks etc is clearly unhelpful, particularly in long term investment industries like pharma.
A company may well use various bargaining chips for a particular investment - we'll put this facility in UK if you can ease the payment system so that we don't get squeezed so hard on our drugs here etc - but that's a negotiating thing. If an uplift in prices would outweigh extra costs of having facility in UK then that might influence that decision. But once that's set, it's not going to influence the next decision unless either there's a further uplift again or a credible threat to squeeze prices if the investment goes elsewhere. If the UK was the best place to have the facility, it would be here irrespective of what we pay for drugs. One-off subsidies are not really a substitute for being competitive.
Now, you could have different effective thresholds for drugs made by companies with significant investment here, for example, some calculation based on net costs to UK, taking into account e.g. the amount of tax/employment provided by the producer in the UK. There could be sound logic in that.
NICE thresholds should clearly be inflation (or some other measure more specific to the industry) linked, otherwise we effectively devalue the value placed on each QALY over time.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
It seems to me that there is a huge lacuna in speculative political journalism, which should be a fertile field for comment in depth:
Putting aside polemic and whataboutery, How would Reform actually govern WRT the tough decisions, the stuff beyond rhetoric?
Governments have to master and direct everything from pig movements orders to declaring war on Russia. How will Reform govern on: debt management, cost cutting, welfare payments, pensions, the balance of taxation, state ownership, house building, international obligations, the lack of physics teachers and so on....
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
Well, what does Farage want?
Does he want to run Britain and make it a better place? What does "better" look like to him?
Or does he simply want to be PM? Or perhaps he simply wants the attention and money that follows from being in the political spotlight, and isn't much bothered by winning the election?
He only needs a credible economic platform for one of those scenarios. We haven't had a PM with a credible economic platform since Theresa May, and her economic platform wasn't exactly great for the country.
You can abhor Charlie Kirk & his beliefs and unequivocally condemn murder. You can do both. It shouldn’t be hard. It’s what grown up, civilized, tolerant people do.
We should condemn political violence, even against people we find abominable, unless we are prepared to trust the judgement of every violent individual as to who the villains are.
We can believe this and express sympathy for the victim's families without retroactively lionizing their politics.
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
I suspect Mandelson will go after Trump's visit, but personally I'm not sure he should. He's made a clear error in loyalty to someone who proved to be a wrong 'un, but he may still be the best choice of ambassador. I know him slightly - he's of a different strand of Labour from me, but has a clear view, which I feel is in short supply at the moment.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
On the other hand I bet you do know what Nyetimber is whereas lots of people dont
A good reminder that sometimes a large volume, slickly branded product can also be one of the best quality out there. Especially true in sparking wine.
Even Nyetimber’s top selling classic cuvée is better than a large proportion of more “artisanal” independent English sparklings. (Not that I would be putting that in my own marketing).
They’ve got a huge new planting over the hill from me on Chartham Downs.
Im tempted to try the 1086 but need to win the lottery first.
I had a really enjoyable Gusborne rose a few weeks back and not bank breaking either.
For non ESW aficionados 1086 is the prestige cuvée from Nyetimber that proved English wine could achieve Veblen goods status. I also have baulked at the price.
I’ve yet to try (or visit) Domaine Evremond which I really must do as it’s also just over the hill from me.
I had no idea it's been in production for over 900 years.
It's pretty bad taste to name it after the Harrowing of the North
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Interesting point, probably true. That infamous guardian profile - “I never dream” - made the same observation. Starmer cannot take personal criticism or contradiction, he gets angry and red faced and loses the plot. A terrible flaw in politics
Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down
The only time he looked good as leader was when effectively prosecuting Boris over partygate. That was a busman’s holiday. Ever since, and before, he is a rigid, humourless, snide who relies on the letter of the law rather than any human instinct
But I want him to stay, I love seeing him floundering
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Starmer might be reluctant to act because Mandelson as an ambo is a representative of the Crown and hence his disgraceful appointment is an embarrassment to HMK and sacking would amplify Starmers embarrassment of sausage fingers. Or Starmer might just be an arsehole
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it. MSNBC have already sacked two reporters who went a bit too close to the bone - Matthew Dowd.
Sacked for victim blaiming actually.
Having read Dowd's words which I put in a further comment, I don't see it. I think that is a Fox news commentator going off piste and personalising a general comment.
I mean America is also fucked wrt guns which I'm sure will be discussed (Kirk, as people have pointed out, thought that the odd fatality was a price worth paying for 2nd Amendment rights). Last night in parallel to news about Kirk was the fact that there was a(nother) school shooting in Colorado.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Interesting point, probably true. That infamous guardian profile - “I never dream” - made the same observation. Starmer cannot take personal criticism or contradiction, he gets angry and red faced and loses the plot. A terrible flaw in politics
Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down
The only time he looked good as leader was when effectively prosecuting Boris over partygate. That was a busman’s holiday. Ever since, and before, he is a rigid, humourless, snide who relies on the letter of the law rather than any human instinct
But I want him to stay, I love seeing him floundering
I don't have anywhere near the strength of feeling on Starmer others on here have.
I really don't - if I'm being honest, he's another in a long line of ineffective political leaders going back some way.
I don't personally dislike him or "hate" him - he's probably trying his best but is out of his depth (as Farage, Badenoch and Davey, to name but three) would be.
I've often thought some believe there's a place for Labour leaders - permanent opposition while the "grown ups" on the other side are in power. Goven how the so-called grown-ups performed in office, that argument is as flawed as those who believe the Earth is flat.
The attractions of a "strong" leader are obvious but as last night's Immigration Debate showed on Sky, it's not the divisions between politicians that are the issue, it's the absence of viable (coherent, lega and cost-effective) solutions to complex and multi-layered problems which frustrates. If anything, there's probably more of an argument for a concensual rather than adversarial approach to these issues (interesting to see Badenoch "offering" to help Starmer cut welfare. I'd have been more impressed if she had offered to help him raise more revenue).
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
This is why I've been saying for the past year or so that I expect Starmer to follow Harold Wilson in retiring early. Save the sausages was an early clue but he often makes verbal slips. Mild marble-lossage need not be career-ending (see eg Thatcher, Reagan, Biden) but maybe the key is whether the victim is aware of it before others.
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it.
In all seriousness, what do you expect a former President to say after the horrific, shocking and public murder of a fairly significant political figure?
Look, anyone who knows anything about Charlie Kirk knows the bloke was hardly Ghandi - he was a divisive character and there is irony in some of his past statements around gun control in the past (astonishingly callous stuff after a school shooting that a few deaths are a price worth paying for the freedom to bear arms). But now is hardly the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects; it would simply inflame tensions when that's the last thing that is needed.
That's a fair challenge.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, now is not the right time, and it would definitely have been the wrong time for Obama to say this.
Emotions mean it simply won't be heard well even if as you say it gathers more attention than it would at another time.
I disagree. Trump has obtained a chunk of his leverage by saying the wrong things at the right time, and shaming his opponents into silence.
It's a time to speak clearly, especially in the USA but also here. We have movements wanting to steal our democracy, and in Government in the USA, by driving a politics of loathing. It won't stop unless we oppose it.
You literally just said, of Kirk, “he kind of deserved it”
About a young family man shot dead in cold blood. Who is driving the “politics of loathing and division “?
Starmer might be reluctant to act because Mandelson as an ambo is a representative of the Crown and hence his disgraceful appointment is an embarrassment to HMK and sacking would amplify Starmers embarrassment of sausage fingers. Or Starmer might just be an arsehole
But leaving him in place is surely equally embarrassing? And reminds people of Prince Andrew.
For me the solution is this: The previous ambassador Dame Karen Pierce left in Feb this year. She did the job for 5 years and was liked and respected by both Democrats and Republicans. Currently an envoy in the Balkans. Bring her back (at least temporarily) and she should be able to get back up to speed quickly.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
Well, what does Farage want?
Does he want to run Britain and make it a better place? What does "better" look like to him?
Or does he simply want to be PM? Or perhaps he simply wants the attention and money that follows from being in the political spotlight, and isn't much bothered by winning the election?
He only needs a credible economic platform for one of those scenarios. We haven't had a PM with a credible economic platform since Theresa May, and her economic platform wasn't exactly great for the country.
I am not sure that Farage really wants to be PM. He enjoys opposition a bit too much, like Corbyn.
I see him very much like the Harry Enfield "you didn't want to do that!" character, for example over Brexit.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
We have to be very careful, when condemning his brutal murder, not to condone some of his more (ahem) interesting views.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
Bishop Budde is a liberal Catholic Episcopalian Anglican not an Evangelical
I'm old enough to remember when you swore, in about 500 posts and against all the evidence, including the first page of the C of E's website, that Anglicans were not and could not be Catholic.
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
Let’s hope then Trump tells his lapdog Starmer to fire Mandelson . No 10 seems to be telling everyone that they can’t fire him until after the state visit . If he’s not gone before hand then he won’t be going at all as the media will get bored of the story and the pressure on Starmer to get rid of him will fall .
The unspoken and ironic thing about Mandelson and being Ambassador to Trumpistan is that Starmer, being a pragmatist, wanted a slimeball for the role who could schmooze other slimeballs. So he will be being sacked for the very same quality that got him the job in the first place.
You mean, it would be like sacking Starmer because he is boring?
Or Boris being both elected and sacked for not following rules. Perhaps this is a more common thing in politics than I assumed. Although with Mandelson, Starmer can't come out directly with the reasons he wants him in place.
It's incredibly common. Arguably, people's characters rarely change all that much as adults, and it's not surprising that the same or closely related traits to those that brought someone to power also bring them down.
Major was seen as a calming, more collegiate figure than Thatcher (or indeed Kinnock), but in changing circumstances that looks like weakness and lack of control over his party - so he was gone. Blair was a smooth salesman, that worked in terms of getting over doubts about Labour after a long period in office, but there's an element of dishonesty in every smooth salesman, and that got him over Iraq in particular.
It's almost harder to think of PMs who don't fit that pattern. Perhaps Eden is one - he fell because he actually turned out to lack the one quality everyone was pretty certain he had, namely a mastery of foreign affairs.
In a BBC programme about all 20th Century Prime Ministers (circa 2007, presented of course by Andrew Marr) Lord Hennessy came up with a rule along the lines of 'a Prime Minister's downfall comes in the area in which they were perceived to specialise'.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
We have to be very careful, when condemning his brutal murder, not to condone some of his more (ahem) interesting views.
Exactly. The guy was spreading poison in US politics. Equally his murder is an abomination. There should be no place for political violence anywhere. Unfortunately the US is an extremely violent society and there doesn't seem to be any will to deal with that. If they don't want to fix their problems, I'm not going to get too upset about the ongoing death toll, as there are more worthy objects of our sympathy out there.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
We have to be very careful, when condemning his brutal murder, not to condone some of his more (ahem) interesting views.
The problem is that Kirk was only one of many on the US right that choose to believe arrant rubbish because it suits their neo-fascist agenda.
There are similar people in the UK, often funded by the same sinister bodies in the US. In the end the ultimate beneficiary is Putin and certainly not the voters of the Western Democracies.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it.
In all seriousness, what do you expect a former President to say after the horrific, shocking and public murder of a fairly significant political figure?
Look, anyone who knows anything about Charlie Kirk knows the bloke was hardly Ghandi - he was a divisive character and there is irony in some of his past statements around gun control in the past (astonishingly callous stuff after a school shooting that a few deaths are a price worth paying for the freedom to bear arms). But now is hardly the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects; it would simply inflame tensions when that's the last thing that is needed.
That's a fair challenge.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, now is not the right time, and it would definitely have been the wrong time for Obama to say this.
Emotions mean it simply won't be heard well even if as you say it gathers more attention than it would at another time.
I disagree. Trump has obtained a chunk of his leverage by saying the wrong things at the right time, and shaming his opponents into silence.
It's a time to speak clearly, especially in the USA but also here. We have movements wanting to steal our democracy, and in Government in the USA, by driving a politics of loathing. It won't stop unless we oppose it.
You literally just said, of Kirk, “he kind of deserved it”
About a young family man shot dead in cold blood. Who is driving the “politics of loathing and division “?
You
Nope. I said that it was a predictable consequence of a political climate/culture he had helped create, which it is.
To wit: If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
Bishop Budde is a liberal Catholic Episcopalian Anglican not an Evangelical
I'm old enough to remember when you swore, in about 500 posts and against all the evidence, including the first page of the C of E's website, that Anglicans were not and could not be Catholic.
#confused
They can be Catholic, just not Roman Catholic as they do not accept the authority of the Pope.
Comet 31/Atlas is turning green, in some quieter and non-political news.
Some signs of anomalous characteristics, according to Avi Loeb, but also within a standard comet range, according to many. May be visible in the sky Nov-Dec.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Interesting point, probably true. That infamous guardian profile - “I never dream” - made the same observation. Starmer cannot take personal criticism or contradiction, he gets angry and red faced and loses the plot. A terrible flaw in politics
Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down
The only time he looked good as leader was when effectively prosecuting Boris over partygate. That was a busman’s holiday. Ever since, and before, he is a rigid, humourless, snide who relies on the letter of the law rather than any human instinct
But I want him to stay, I love seeing him floundering
I don't have anywhere near the strength of feeling on Starmer others on here have.
I really don't - if I'm being honest, he's another in a long line of ineffective political leaders going back some way.
I don't personally dislike him or "hate" him - he's probably trying his best but is out of his depth (as Farage, Badenoch and Davey, to name but three) would be.
I've often thought some believe there's a place for Labour leaders - permanent opposition while the "grown ups" on the other side are in power. Goven how the so-called grown-ups performed in office, that argument is as flawed as those who believe the Earth is flat.
The attractions of a "strong" leader are obvious but as last night's Immigration Debate showed on Sky, it's not the divisions between politicians that are the issue, it's the absence of viable (coherent, lega and cost-effective) solutions to complex and multi-layered problems which frustrates. If anything, there's probably more of an argument for a concensual rather than adversarial approach to these issues (interesting to see Badenoch "offering" to help Starmer cut welfare. I'd have been more impressed if she had offered to help him raise more revenue).
You might be more impressed in regards to revenue raising but you're never going to vote for the Tories so it's probably a good thing she didn't offer tax raising assistance to the government. We need to cut spending and cut it now.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Parrotting the Farage line again
I thought as a Christian you would uphold the highest standards of integrity, and be appalled at the connection with Epstein and Mandelson but sadly your right wing leanings seem to be more important
Most evangelicals, especially US ones, love Trump and Farage, that is just a fact whether you like it or not
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
Well, what does Farage want?
Does he want to run Britain and make it a better place? What does "better" look like to him?
Or does he simply want to be PM? Or perhaps he simply wants the attention and money that follows from being in the political spotlight, and isn't much bothered by winning the election?
He only needs a credible economic platform for one of those scenarios. We haven't had a PM with a credible economic platform since Theresa May, and her economic platform wasn't exactly great for the country.
I am not sure that Farage really wants to be PM. He enjoys opposition a bit too much, like Corbyn.
I see him very much like the Harry Enfield "you didn't want to do that!" character, for example over Brexit.
Farage did say they have to be ready for an election in 2027.
For me, I see Farage as the frontman but the key people doing a lot of the work behind the scenes are Tice and Yusuf. Reform have their "contract" on their website, which has quite a few policies in - really a lot of this was the work of Tice.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
He was a big friend of Israel because, like a lot of US evangelicas, he saw the return of the Jews to Israel as fulfilling biblical prophecy and hence bringing forward the end times scenario sketched out in the Book of Revelation (at which point Jews in common with other non Christians will come to a sticky end). There is no inconsistency in this worldview with also thinking Jews in the US are a sinister cabal seeking to replace white Christians with minorities.
Govt says when it appointed Mandelson as ambassador it didn’t know the extent of his relationship with Epstein. But we reported on it back in 2019 (see below). Only cursory due diligence was required…The decision to appoint him was a matter of political judgement.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Good morning everybody.
And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified. Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.
Given Starmer won the biggest Labour majority since Blair after 4 consecutive Labour defeats and clearly is a more competent PM than Corbyn or Long Bailey would have been despite everything somewhat strange comment.
I am sure Carney is coping well having won the biggest come from behind victory for any party in Canadian electoral history
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Better the devil you know.
True, maybe - but if Starmer goes it greatly increases the chance the entire government collapses into chaos. Remember we still have a financial reckoning heading our way, and fast
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
If I was Farage I'd be bricking it, he hasnt got the policies ready for a quick election. If he wants to run the place he needs a credible economic platform.
Well, what does Farage want?
Does he want to run Britain and make it a better place? What does "better" look like to him?
Or does he simply want to be PM? Or perhaps he simply wants the attention and money that follows from being in the political spotlight, and isn't much bothered by winning the election?
He only needs a credible economic platform for one of those scenarios. We haven't had a PM with a credible economic platform since Theresa May, and her economic platform wasn't exactly great for the country.
I am not sure that Farage really wants to be PM. He enjoys opposition a bit too much, like Corbyn.
I see him very much like the Harry Enfield "you didn't want to do that!" character, for example over Brexit.
Yeah. I can see him aiming to be Leader of the Opposition and a Privy Counsellor.
His immediate reaction after the polls closed in the Brexit Referendum seemed to show he was aiming for that then. Winning the referendum didn't seem to be part of the plan.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
We have to be very careful, when condemning his brutal murder, not to condone some of his more (ahem) interesting views.
Exactly. The guy was spreading poison in US politics. Equally his murder is an abomination. There should be no place for political violence anywhere. Unfortunately the US is an extremely violent society and there doesn't seem to be any will to deal with that. If they don't want to fix their problems, I'm not going to get too upset about the ongoing death toll, as there are more worthy objects of our sympathy out there.
So now you're a Charlie Kirk expert. From zero to hero in 12 hours. Or should that be the other way round.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
I'd say that first paragraph is a very splintered version of "Biblical Christianity"; it's more like the kind of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey quote mining that Dawkins used to do.
Even the most basic principles around context and overall consistency of message applied within the Reformed tradition demolish that.
But I think you are caricaturing .
One issue with Trumpvangelicals is that they lean towards Dominionism, which cannot really be described as biblical. It's rather the old conscious or unconscious heresy vector - what do we want to believe, and how can we make the Bible back us up?
Govt says when it appointed Mandelson as ambassador it didn’t know the extent of his relationship with Epstein. But we reported on it back in 2019 (see below). Only cursory due diligence was required…The decision to appoint him was a matter of political judgement.
Comments
Then we get an election and then we have the Blessed Nigel as PM, and all peace and prosperity shall be restored
This is the second week of total paralysis and engulfing scandal and it’s getting worse
And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified.
Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.
There are thousands of Christian sects, but why people choose one over another is interesting. Sometimes simply geography or personal acquaintance, but also people do tend to choose a sect that aligns with other beliefs including political ones. The success of American Evangelicalism is that it embraces consumerism and showmanship. Others find a home that is very different. My own church is very strong on social action as a manifestation of faith (hence we have several elderly members with arrests for "Terrorism".
Vance is an interesting one, converting to a very orthodox Catholicism. I see this as a closeness to top down authoritarianism and the power of the Establishment, old and new.
Our fathers house has many rooms.
For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs.
For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer.
The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.
Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.
This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment.
Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades.
We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration.
As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.
With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.
Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.
Charlie Kirk assassinated and it was absolutely definitely positively radical left traitors wot did it
Trump whips up rage against the libs
More political violence
Trump declares Marshall law and reigns until his heart pump expires
* He of the blue dolphin bowls.
It's a time to speak clearly, especially in the USA but also here. We have movements wanting to steal our democracy, and in Government in the USA, by driving a politics of loathing. It won't stop unless we oppose it.
I thought as a Christian you would uphold the highest standards of integrity, and be appalled at the connection with Epstein and Mandelson but sadly your right wing leanings seem to be more important
Sure enough, companies dropped out of auction. The high prices caused a retrenchment in the industry, substantial job loses. The result was slower adoption.
The low price of drugs and lots of tax on companies is one part of the overall value to the U.K.
You can abhor Charlie Kirk & his beliefs and unequivocally condemn murder. You can do both. It shouldn’t be hard. It’s what grown up, civilized, tolerant people do.
https://x.com/WalshFreedom/status/1966003707717583175
@explaintrade.com
We should condemn political violence, even against people we find abominable, unless we are prepared to trust the judgement of every violent individual as to who the villains are.
We can believe this and express sympathy for the victim's families without retroactively lionizing their politics.
https://bsky.app/profile/explaintrade.com/post/3lyka2yz6xc2h
I expect he would have been pretty happy being attorney general during the Blair government, but he's well out of his depth and there's no life raft in view.
In effect, it was another means of prioritising day to day government spending over investment. Which has been our besetting sin for the last three decades.
After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
No-one wants the NHS to pay US pharma prices, but perhaps it's been a bit too effective at driving prices down.
A few years from now, preferably after a period in Opposition, they might be credible.
Numerous ministers in private insisting Mandelson has to go and his departure is inevitable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7dzejkz4ro
So that leaves three? Lucy, Bridget and Bell or have I forgotten one?
A company may well use various bargaining chips for a particular investment - we'll put this facility in UK if you can ease the payment system so that we don't get squeezed so hard on our drugs here etc - but that's a negotiating thing. If an uplift in prices would outweigh extra costs of having facility in UK then that might influence that decision. But once that's set, it's not going to influence the next decision unless either there's a further uplift again or a credible threat to squeeze prices if the investment goes elsewhere. If the UK was the best place to have the facility, it would be here irrespective of what we pay for drugs. One-off subsidies are not really a substitute for being competitive.
Now, you could have different effective thresholds for drugs made by companies with significant investment here, for example, some calculation based on net costs to UK, taking into account e.g. the amount of tax/employment provided by the producer in the UK. There could be sound logic in that.
NICE thresholds should clearly be inflation (or some other measure more specific to the industry) linked, otherwise we effectively devalue the value placed on each QALY over time.
Putting aside polemic and whataboutery, How would Reform actually govern WRT the tough decisions, the stuff beyond rhetoric?
Governments have to master and direct everything from pig movements orders to declaring war on Russia. How will Reform govern on: debt management, cost cutting, welfare payments, pensions, the balance of taxation, state ownership, house building, international obligations, the lack of physics teachers and so on....
Strong and Stable.
Levelling Up.
Make Brexit work.
Starmer is a massive pric…
Does he want to run Britain and make it a better place? What does "better" look like to him?
Or does he simply want to be PM? Or perhaps he simply wants the attention and money that follows from being in the political spotlight, and isn't much bothered by winning the election?
He only needs a credible economic platform for one of those scenarios. We haven't had a PM with a credible economic platform since Theresa May, and her economic platform wasn't exactly great for the country.
·
Sep 9
Labour Deputy Leadership race...
Posh Spice - Emily Thornberry
Scary Spice - Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Sporty Spice - Alison McGovern
@PeterMannionMP
Looks like it's Loyal Spice v Sacked Spice...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/11/politics-latest-news-starmer-peter-mandelson-epstein-resign/
But I want him to stay, I love seeing him floundering
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Or Starmer might just be an arsehole
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/at-least-2-students-shot-denver-area-high-school
I really don't - if I'm being honest, he's another in a long line of ineffective political leaders going back some way.
I don't personally dislike him or "hate" him - he's probably trying his best but is out of his depth (as Farage, Badenoch and Davey, to name but three) would be.
I've often thought some believe there's a place for Labour leaders - permanent opposition while the "grown ups" on the other side are in power. Goven how the so-called grown-ups performed in office, that argument is as flawed as those who believe the Earth is flat.
The attractions of a "strong" leader are obvious but as last night's Immigration Debate showed on Sky, it's not the divisions between politicians that are the issue, it's the absence of viable (coherent, lega and cost-effective) solutions to complex and multi-layered problems which frustrates. If anything, there's probably more of an argument for a concensual rather than adversarial approach to these issues (interesting to see Badenoch "offering" to help Starmer cut welfare. I'd have been more impressed if she had offered to help him raise more revenue).
About a young family man shot dead in cold blood. Who is driving the “politics of loathing and division “?
You
For me the solution is this: The previous ambassador Dame Karen Pierce left in Feb this year. She did the job for 5 years and was liked and respected by both Democrats and Republicans. Currently an envoy in the Balkans. Bring her back (at least temporarily) and she should be able to get back up to speed quickly.
Labour frontbencher tells HuffPost UK that Mandelson needs to go "and quickly".
Downing St position that PM still has confidence in his US ambassador feels increasingly untenable.
I see him very much like the Harry Enfield "you didn't want to do that!" character, for example over Brexit.
https://youtu.be/5bFWQ16BuSQ?si=TNEMFVt5xu2KQ7GD
#confused
Wes Streeting says he was “completely disgusted” by latest Mandelson messages
His future is “a matter for the prime minister” he adds - not exactly wholehearted backing…
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
Further information came to light …..
BREAKING: Police investigation after 'incident' at MP Sharon Hodgson's constituency office
There are similar people in the UK, often funded by the same sinister bodies in the US. In the end the ultimate beneficiary is Putin and certainly not the voters of the Western Democracies.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
To wit: If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
Some signs of anomalous characteristics, according to Avi Loeb, but also within a standard comet range, according to many. May be visible in the sky Nov-Dec.
They say a week is a long time in politics
Rayner and Mandelson gone is utterly astonishing
Kemi Badenoch should take some credit in make Starmer look like a complete moron over Mandleson yesterday.
the left really are on a roll of violence at the moment aren't they.
For me, I see Farage as the frontman but the key people doing a lot of the work behind the scenes are Tice and Yusuf. Reform have their "contract" on their website, which has quite a few policies in - really a lot of this was the work of Tice.
After all, he has a long history of resigning, then coming straight back.
Govt says when it appointed Mandelson as ambassador it didn’t know the extent of his relationship with Epstein. But we reported on it back in 2019 (see below). Only cursory due diligence was required…The decision to appoint him was a matter of political judgement.
I am sure Carney is coping well having won the biggest come from behind victory for any party in Canadian electoral history
The man is an idiot of the first water. He’s not fit to be PM. The focus must now turn on HIM
If Mandelson isn't gone soon it'll only get worse for Starmer. Not even his front bench will support his position.
His immediate reaction after the polls closed in the Brexit Referendum seemed to show he was aiming for that then. Winning the referendum didn't seem to be part of the plan.
be interested to see if their line is "he lied to us" or "we didn't ask"
Even the most basic principles around context and overall consistency of message applied within the Reformed tradition demolish that.
But I think you are caricaturing
One issue with Trumpvangelicals is that they lean towards Dominionism, which cannot really be described as biblical. It's rather the old conscious or unconscious heresy vector - what do we want to believe, and how can we make the Bible back us up?