Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
It alarms and depresses me that the 'comedy PM' of 'Cones Hotline' fame is now our senior elder statesman. And yet here we are.
Looking back on it his premiership was overall relatively successful, he left low inflation, a balanced budget and low unemployment and a growing economy for New Labour and when he went to war with Saddam in 1990 it was with a UN mandate. Plus he started the NI peace process, got an opt out from the Euro and left the National Lottery which has made a big difference to our Olympians and boosted cultural causes too.
got an opt out from the Euro
How do you get an opt out from something which didn't exist ?
Not joining the Euro was the default situation, opting into the Euro would have been the change.
And had Heseltine been PM we would likely have done the latter, as most EU nations did
Presumably Trump has a Plan B now Congress hasn't given him what he wants.
From listening to David Pakman this evening I understand the FBI have redacted Trump's name and the names of all Republicans involved with Epstein prior to release. This was reported as long ago as 1st August this year by Bloomberg.
The reason? Respecting Trump's privacy as a private citizen in 2006.
Presumably Trump has a Plan B now Congress hasn't given him what he wants.
From listening to David Pakman this evening I understand the FBI have redacted Trump's name and the names of all Republicans involved with Epstein prior to release. This was reported as long ago as 1st August this year by Bloomberg.
The reason? Respecting Trump's privacy as a private citizen in 2006.
Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
It alarms and depresses me that the 'comedy PM' of 'Cones Hotline' fame is now our senior elder statesman. And yet here we are.
Looking back on it his premiership was overall relatively successful, he left low inflation, a balanced budget and low unemployment and a growing economy for New Labour and when he went to war with Saddam in 1990 it was with a UN mandate. Plus he started the NI peace process, got an opt out from the Euro and left the National Lottery which has made a big difference to our Olympians and boosted cultural causes too.
Looking back is very different to how it felt at the time, though. It was almost a daily "Is the government about to collapse?" feeling.
Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
Depends what part of the World one is speaking from. Remarkably Blair has gravitas in the Middle East and the US. Brown has some authority in US and European financial circles. Cameron has a certain cache on PB and Johnson is a legend in Conservative pensioner groups across the nation.
Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
It alarms and depresses me that the 'comedy PM' of 'Cones Hotline' fame is now our senior elder statesman. And yet here we are.
Looking back on it his premiership was overall relatively successful, he left low inflation, a balanced budget and low unemployment and a growing economy for New Labour and when he went to war with Saddam in 1990 it was with a UN mandate. Plus he started the NI peace process, got an opt out from the Euro and left the National Lottery which has made a big difference to our Olympians and boosted cultural causes too.
Looking back is very different to how it felt at the time, though. It was almost a daily "Is the government about to collapse?" feeling.
Only because Blair looked relatively fresh and new and the Tories had been in too long and some of their MPs behaved badly.
Now Major probably has more respect from the voters than Blair
Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
Depends what part of the World one is speaking from. Remarkably Blair has gravitas in the Middle East and the US. Brown has some authority in US and European financial circles. Cameron has a certain cache on PB and Johnson is a legend in Conservative pensioner groups across the nation.
Yes he does in the US, both Republicans and Democrats like Blair, less so in the Middle East though post Iraq apart from maybe the Gulf states and Israel. Brown left higher unemployment, higher inflation and a larger deficit in 2010 than Major did in 1997 but had a bit of clout from his banking stabliisation bailouts. Globally no PM has matched Thatcher or Churchill in clout, Blair got closest but Iraq hit his legacy certainly with Muslims (though ironically Iraq is now more free than Afghanistan).
Cameron will forever be associated with Brexit and his failed EU referendum gamble above all despite some positive public service reforms and deficit cuts. Boris got Brexit done and beat Corbyn but partygate and the Boriswave have tarnished his legacy as well. Truss has become the byword in awful premiers, Sunak led the Tories to a worse defeat in 2024 than Major did in 1997 with no Major 1992 win to balance it. Starmer is now loathed near universally in polls
"Politics - indeed world news - is going to be dominated as of today by the fall of Trump, the 25th Amendment, the rise of dead duck President J D Vance. The airbrushing from history of the Epstein associates. The anger of MAGA at how they've been used. The quiet clear-out of Republicans who supported Trump, either by not standing again or by the wrath of the voters.
"A bar in Greater Manchester has banned solo drinkers from entering.
Alibi in Altrincham has a sign outside the front door stating that the venue does not allow people to enter on their own.
“No single entry,” it reads. “After 9pm, Alibi does not permit single entry. If you are with guests already inside the venue, please contact them in advance of entry. This is for the safety of all guests.”
In a post on social media Carl Peters, who owns the cocktail and karaoke bar, called out a man who had described the policy as discriminatory.
Explaining the rationale behind the rule, he said: “If something happens to that person in a late-night, busy bar environment where people are drinking it’s an absolute nightmare for us to deal with.”"
ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. 400 jobs. For the first time since the UK invented polyethylene (the most important of all plastics) we are no longer manufacturing the key ingredient, ethylene, in this country...
But Ed Miliband will be over the moon, great news for the country that all that energy and all those carbon emissions will no longer happen - just ignore the UK now being dependent on imports for strategic supplies and the 400 jobs bits.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
If it is true, as Polly Toynbee in Guardian asserts, that Reeves backed out of her 2p income tax rise at the "command" of Downing Street, why didn't save some dignity and resign?
Integrity has disappeared from politics
That is as may be, but remember however that Boris Johnson got all the big calls right.
Um... he turned the moderate Tories into the snow, creating a ludicrous reality-denying, populist fiasco, and all to defend his disastrous judgement on Brexit, for which both he and Farage should be left in the political stocks for the rest of their lives.
As for Ukraine, he claims vast credit, but that is, quite frankly, stolen valor .
He was hugely important for Ukraine in the initial months providing the first defence and rallying allies. Just ask the Ukrainians
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
The legislation specifically contains provisions to avoid that. Though it's absolutely fair to question their effectiveness.
At current demand levels, before we advance to EVs and heat pumps at every home run by solar and batteries, the known global copper reserves will run out in thirty years
These known reserves will become much more expensive and environmentally damaging to extract well before they run out
Unless we can develop an easily manufacturable and sustainable superconductor in the next decade, then copper prices will skyrocket
Does anyone want to help me start a company that buys and stores copper?
What about silver? Or gadolinium if you want to push the boat out.
Pope Leo XIV responding to the US bishops’ statement on the detention and deportation of migrants:
“No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter. But when people are living good lives, and many of them for 10, 15, 20 years, to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there has been some violence unfortunately. I think that the Bishops have been very clear in what they said and I think that I was just invite all people in the United States to listen to them.” https://x.com/CatholicSat/status/1990883163334455495
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Indeed. You’d think that Musk could potentially have a case for libel by implication (iANAL so don’t know if that is a thing!)
The Senate passed a deemed as passed motion in respect of the Epstein resolution before the bill even got to them from the House so it went straight to Trump's desk with it being crystal clear that any attempt at a veto will be instantly overturned. There is a risk that he will still try to hide behind the "active investigations" of various Democrats that he triggered at the end of last week but I think Trump has run out of room for manoeuvre.
We might now get to see at least some of what he has been so desperate to hide. Might even save an unnecessary war in Venezuela.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Indeed. You’d think that Musk could potentially have a case for libel by implication (iANAL so don’t know if that is a thing!)
His reply on X that got tens of millions of views, was probably enough for him. The US courts have a very high bar for libel of a public figure, and a British court action won’t get a very rich man a meaningful payout, mostly just enriching the lawyers.
That sort of reporting isn’t particularly unusual in US media, especially where there’s a political angle to the story, factually correct but totally out of context, or missing key details that change the story.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Indeed. You’d think that Musk could potentially have a case for libel by implication (iANAL so don’t know if that is a thing!)
His reply on X that got tens of millions of views, was probably enough for him. The US courts have a very high bar for libel of a public figure, and a British court action won’t get a very rich man a meaningful payout, mostly just enriching the lawyers.
That sort of reporting isn’t particularly unusual in US media, especially where there’s a political angle to the story, factually correct but totally out of context, or missing key details that change the story.
But you'd expect the BBC not to be doing it. I haven't seen the actual story or context but if your description is correct (I'm not doubting it) that's very poor reporting.
A weird thing about Trump 2.0 is as far as I can recall no one has resigned.
Trump 1.0 had an almost daily turn over of aides, staff, officers etc.
In his first time, Trump picked people with some knowledge of the subject or links to certain groups to make up for his own deficiencies.
That came with a relative independence of mind and a willingness to tell him he was wrong, culminating in his removal from office when he lost an election despite his attempt at a coup.
Trump now picks solely for loyalty to the Great Leader, which is why the lunatics genuinely are in charge of the asylum system and everything else.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Indeed. You’d think that Musk could potentially have a case for libel by implication (iANAL so don’t know if that is a thing!)
His reply on X that got tens of millions of views, was probably enough for him. The US courts have a very high bar for libel of a public figure, and a British court action won’t get a very rich man a meaningful payout, mostly just enriching the lawyers.
That sort of reporting isn’t particularly unusual in US media, especially where there’s a political angle to the story, factually correct but totally out of context, or missing key details that change the story.
But you'd expect the BBC not to be doing it. I haven't seen the actual story or context but if your description is correct (I'm not doubting it) that's very poor reporting.
Indeed, which is why two bosses at the BBC resigned the other week, after a row over impartiality on a number of subjects.
Thanks to the unique way it’s funded, as they themselves are fond of saying, the BBC should strive to be better than commercial news, be as straight as possible in their output, and admit when they get it wrong. They will know that most people don’t read much past the headline.
I see BBC iPlayer has now moved to spot and block VPNs, which is sad.
Surprised it's taken them so long to be honest.
The logical flaw in IPlayer and BBC Sounds is at the heart of the problems with the BBC as a whole and the mreason it won't exist in 10 years time.
The only time I ever want to use IPlayer or Sounds is when I am abroad and I am sure others are the same. But it is so inconvenient, even on the telly that for most things I will use YouTube instead.
I know the main reason they think they have to block foreigners, because that is what they are doing in a most un touchy feely way is because of exclusive UK access to worldwide shite I would never dream of watching. No doubt the new DG will be someone just as woke as the last one and also no doubt whatever its pronouns are it will be out on its arse within a day of the next government coming to power. That will probably be too late.
Is there any living ex PM with more gravitas and authority now than Major? Nobody would have believed that in 1997 and he certainly has more authority than Starmer now too
It alarms and depresses me that the 'comedy PM' of 'Cones Hotline' fame is now our senior elder statesman. And yet here we are.
The “cones hotline” and the “back to basics” were both distorted from their meanings by a successful campaign against the government and Major.
The cones hotline was about feedback from the public actually altering official behaviour. It caused shock and horror in officialdom - “But, if we can’t cone off lanes months in advance of doing work, that will be inconvenient. For us!”
Back to basics was actually supposed to be about the government actually doing governing, rather than a morality crusade. Things like Major’s crack down on late payment of contractors by government departments.
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
The BBC and Sky, both with an agenda against Musk, in shoddy reporting shock !
Who is the person who didn't want the files released?
Dare I guess it is an older man...
Just somebody who pressed the wrong button?
I sort of get his argument - which is releasing all of the unredacted information to the media will damage the privacy of witnesses, alibi providers, victims who don’t want to go public etc.
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
It’s a difficult one, the biggest issue I see is the media writing utterly misleading stories based on the releases, as we’ve already seen in the past few weeks.
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
Indeed. You’d think that Musk could potentially have a case for libel by implication (iANAL so don’t know if that is a thing!)
His reply on X that got tens of millions of views, was probably enough for him. The US courts have a very high bar for libel of a public figure, and a British court action won’t get a very rich man a meaningful payout, mostly just enriching the lawyers.
That sort of reporting isn’t particularly unusual in US media, especially where there’s a political angle to the story, factually correct but totally out of context, or missing key details that change the story.
But you'd expect the BBC not to be doing it. I haven't seen the actual story or context but if your description is correct (I'm not doubting it) that's very poor reporting.
I’m not surprised at the BBC in the least doing this. It’s reporting is not as magnificent as its fanboys and girls think.
Comments
Trump 1.0 had an almost daily turn over of aides, staff, officers etc.
The reason? Respecting Trump's privacy as a private citizen in 2006.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-01/fbi-redacted-president-donald-trump-s-name-in-the-epstein-files
Now Major probably has more respect from the voters than Blair
Cameron will forever be associated with Brexit and his failed EU referendum gamble above all despite some positive public service reforms and deficit cuts. Boris got Brexit done and beat Corbyn but partygate and the Boriswave have tarnished his legacy as well. Truss has become the byword in awful premiers, Sunak led the Tories to a worse defeat in 2024 than Major did in 1997 with no Major 1992 win to balance it. Starmer is now loathed near universally in polls
And I assume John Major will strongly support any laws passed by a future Farage-led government.
"Politics - indeed world news - is going to be dominated as of today by the fall of Trump, the 25th Amendment, the rise of dead duck President J D Vance. The airbrushing from history of the Epstein associates. The anger of MAGA at how they've been used. The quiet clear-out of Republicans who supported Trump, either by not standing again or by the wrath of the voters.
Strap up for a hell of a ride..."
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d103099b-7100-4ada-877d-c68e3738fb95?shareToken=366c984f7ed54181ba7ebf46bbaa0c31
"A bar in Greater Manchester has banned solo drinkers from entering.
Alibi in Altrincham has a sign outside the front door stating that the venue does not allow people to enter on their own.
“No single entry,” it reads. “After 9pm, Alibi does not permit single entry. If you are with guests already inside the venue, please contact them in advance of entry. This is for the safety of all guests.”
In a post on social media Carl Peters, who owns the cocktail and karaoke bar, called out a man who had described the policy as discriminatory.
Explaining the rationale behind the rule, he said: “If something happens to that person in a late-night, busy bar environment where people are drinking it’s an absolute nightmare for us to deal with.”"
“Yes, we will see to it that your phone is recycled at a state-of-the-art facility”
https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1990959395669172584
Congratulations to Scotland 🏴
But the harm caused by not releasing the complete files is worse
I think that’s got to be the best use to date…
One example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyl8j1we0lo
“Elon Musk and Prince Andrew named in new Epstein files”
The actual story was that Mr Musk’s name appeared in one email, where others were discussing sending him an invitation to the island, yet the BBC and Sky both named him in the headline before Andrew, who we know was a regular visitor to the island. Musk was sent an invitation, and turned it down. That’s a pretty baseless smear of a public figure, which should fail any obvious test of journalistic integrity.
It’s like me saying to my wife “wouldn’t it be great if we could book Oasis for my birthday party?”, and the media reporting it as somehow implicating the band in my otherwise poor decision-making.
Yes, sunlight is probably the best thing to do with the files, but there’s going to be a lot of names named, not all of whom are going to be guilty of sexual offences. Many will be very quick to jump to incorrect conclusions.
And the guy in question is a complete tool.
Or is it journalists who are expected to learn their lesson ?
“No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter. But when people are living good lives, and many of them for 10, 15, 20 years, to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there has been some violence unfortunately. I think that the Bishops have been very clear in what they said and I think that I was just invite all people in the United States to listen to them.”
https://x.com/CatholicSat/status/1990883163334455495
Starmer’s squandering of a historic election victory is a tragedy nearing its finale
Rafael Behr
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/keir-starmer-labour-leadership
‘I thought the grownups were back in charge!’: John Crace on how Labour shattered his expectations
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/19/john-crace-on-how-labour-shattered-his-expectations
I can’t remember ever being so confident at the start of an away Ashes series
Mark Ramprakash
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/18/england-australia-confident-ashes-series-2025-mark-ramprakash-cricket
We might now get to see at least some of what he has been so desperate to hide. Might even save an unnecessary war in Venezuela.
That sort of reporting isn’t particularly unusual in US media, especially where there’s a political angle to the story, factually correct but totally out of context, or missing key details that change the story.
That came with a relative independence of mind and a willingness to tell him he was wrong, culminating in his removal from office when he lost an election despite his attempt at a coup.
Trump now picks solely for loyalty to the Great Leader, which is why the lunatics genuinely are in charge of the asylum system and everything else.
Thanks to the unique way it’s funded, as they themselves are fond of saying, the BBC should strive to be better than commercial news, be as straight as possible in their output, and admit when they get it wrong. They will know that most people don’t read much past the headline.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxkvkwjl5eo
Huzzah for Rachel Reeves, finest Chancellor in the whole of SW1.
Which is part of our collective problem.
(Really, we want someone who understands both high finance and normal people, and they seem to be inversely correlated.)
NEW THREAD
The only time I ever want to use IPlayer or Sounds is when I am abroad and I am sure others are the same. But it is so inconvenient, even on the telly that for most things I will use YouTube instead.
I know the main reason they think they have to block foreigners, because that is what they are doing in a most un touchy feely way is because of exclusive UK access to worldwide shite I would never dream of watching. No doubt the new DG will be someone just as woke as the last one and also no doubt whatever its pronouns are it will be out on its arse within a day of the next government coming to power. That will probably be too late.
The cones hotline was about feedback from the public actually altering official behaviour. It caused shock and horror in officialdom - “But, if we can’t cone off lanes months in advance of doing work, that will be inconvenient. For us!”
Back to basics was actually supposed to be about the government actually doing governing, rather than a morality crusade. Things like Major’s crack down on late payment of contractors by government departments.
He made sure to only appoint on loyalty this time. Hence the even more bizarre parade of the incompetent and unemployable among his picks.