No, centrists did, but if Corbyn had become PM you could imagine similar documents being produced about Israel.
As a centrist I believe there is some mileage in reviewing the UK's relationship with an extremist Israeli Government. Starmer personally has some questions to answer about his total capitulation over a genocide in Gaza.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
Promoting the EU across the World and our interests within the EU when we were integrated into the constitution of the EU and net beneficiaries for example of EU World trade policy is wholly different from batting for Putin's Russia or Trump's USA with no tangible benefits for us.
What's that got to do with anything?
As you know I am but an ill educated fool but I saw a differentiation between Nathan Gill shilling for Russia and John Major signing the Maastricht Treaty.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
Promoting the EU across the World and our interests within the EU when we were integrated into the constitution of the EU and net beneficiaries for example of EU World trade policy is wholly different from batting for Putin's Russia or Trump's USA with no tangible benefits for us.
What's that got to do with anything?
As you know I am but an ill educated fool but I saw a differentiation between Nathan Gill shilling for Russia and John Major signing the Maastricht Treaty.
In political circles across Ukraine, Europe and Asia, a quiet consensus is forming: President Trump has lost control of his own coalition. The sense on the inside is that he has not only lost the MAGA base, he has alienated mainstream Republicans, donors and the international partners who once tolerated his unpredictability. What was whispered in January is now spoken aloud in April: Trump is politically exhausted, strategically adrift and increasingly isolated.
Several foreign diplomats describe the situation in the same blunt terms. They say Trump is entering the most dangerous phase of any presidency, the moment when the world stops taking a leader seriously long before his term is over. His credibility is eroding faster than his administration can manufacture talking points, and his decision making appears detached from both political reality and global interests.
The expectation in Washington and abroad is equally harsh. A political tsunami is coming in the midterms, and it is likely to wipe out the Republican majority entirely. This is not partisan analysis, it is survival logic. Republicans know that tying themselves to Trump now is the fastest way to lose their seats, their influence and their future inside the party. The first quiet repositionings have already begun, and the calculation is simple. If they want to be in Congress next year, they cannot afford to be in Trump’s shadow this year.
And here is the part that foreign capitals talk about the most. No one is going to help Trump push through an unfair deal or a last minute political stunt in the months before his final and increasingly irrelevant year in office. Not Europe, not Asia, not the global institutions he keeps trying to strong arm. The world sees what is happening. They know the clock is running out. They know the next administration will be forced to rebuild credibility from scratch. Backing Trump now would only guarantee that the damage lasts longer.
There does seem to be a distinct lack of media interest in the Nathan Gill conviction, and how such treachery could be circling around his sphere of influence.
Compare and contrast with, for example Rayner whose tax affairs were considered in detail both before and after her defenestration. If treason is too minor a scandal to focus upon when financial impropriety is of greater interest, one could also compare and contrast with a similar home ownership anomaly around a house purchase in Frinton-on- Sea, which barely made a sub- headline.
Well for a start Rayner is a household name in politics, whereas Nathan Gill isn't and never was. She was a current government minister and still one of the favourites to be next Prime Minister, whereas Gill stopped being the leader of the Welsh version of a party with no MPs five years ago.
Secondly, there was a lot of focus on Rayner, but never the constant inference that her misdemeanours meant Starmer, Reeves and co were also at it.
Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of focus on Farage's home in Frinton (I don't think you have to pretend to be a journalist worried about libel on that one), and no doubt more to come.
I do apologise. When I responded to your post I didn't answer this point.
Of course if other members of the Cabinet has demonstrated any evidence that they too had made erroneous declarations on mortgage applications I have no doubt they would be called out on it. I have no doubt the Telegraph was very diligent in this aspect.
The questions following on from Gill stem from evidence already in the public domain that other UKIP/Brexit personnel have been making the same statements and asking the same questions using remarkably similar language, idioms and analogies to those Gill was prosecuted for using, albeit, in his case, after taking a bribe.
I am sure you are right and Mr Farage has no case to answer, but as our Prime Minister in waiting he has some explanations to make to reassure us that he is a genuine patriot with the future prosperity of the UK as his priority and not that of some third party state , be that Russia or America.
"or the EU", some might say
You've genuinely lost me. I am not sure what you mean.
He is saying that our politicians should have to tell us if they are acting in the interests of any other foreign power, and that includes the EU. For example, signing a 'deal' that does absolutely shit all for the UK, except get the EU to stop using SPS checks to block UK imports - something that was against WTM rules and a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement anyway, and in return we renew their fishing rights over our waters for another 12 years. Or signing tens of millions over to France to 'smash the gangs', whereupon they let over more people than they did before the deal was signed.
Perhaps before we question where Farage's loyalties lie, we should ask serious questions about where Starmer's loyalties lie.
Promoting the EU across the World and our interests within the EU when we were integrated into the constitution of the EU and net beneficiaries for example of EU World trade policy is wholly different from batting for Putin's Russia or Trump's USA with no tangible benefits for us.
What's that got to do with anything?
As you know I am but an ill educated fool but I saw a differentiation between Nathan Gill shilling for Russia and John Major signing the Maastricht Treaty.
Time for the EU to tell this guy to do one. They've been considering it for several years; now is the time to grasp the nettle.
Viktor Orban has officially notified the European Commission that unless the European Union “immediately and unconditionally” supports the "peace plan" of Donald Trump, Hungary will block any and all forms of European aid for Ukraine. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1992582093587800395
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
Trouble is that what Mrs Thatcher actually did was to stumble across two magic money trees – North Sea Oil and privatisation. To be fair, she helped create a third with the big bang unleashing the City. On the question of ‘society’, I believe Mrs Thatcher was genuinely surprised that the new entrepreneurial classes did not have much interest in playing the Good Samaritan of her parable as they did in America or had done here in the 19th Century.
The other large change is due indirectly to women entering the workforce at scale. This means first there are more dual-income households, but the double (or triple) whammy is that this means people marry within their class – doctors marry doctors instead of nurses or receptionists, for instance – which greatly reduces social mobility and multiplies the income differentials of high-earning, dual-income couples compared with low dual-income couples and singles.
You mention credit cards which illustrates another pernicious development. Not people living beyond their means but what economists call rent-seeking – middlemen taking a small chunk of every transaction between customer and supplier, and it's not just credit cards, it's the payment processors between the credit cards and the retailers, it's the online platforms and so on.
In political circles across Ukraine, Europe and Asia, a quiet consensus is forming: President Trump has lost control of his own coalition. The sense on the inside is that he has not only lost the MAGA base, he has alienated mainstream Republicans, donors and the international partners who once tolerated his unpredictability. What was whispered in January is now spoken aloud in April: Trump is politically exhausted, strategically adrift and increasingly isolated.
Several foreign diplomats describe the situation in the same blunt terms. They say Trump is entering the most dangerous phase of any presidency, the moment when the world stops taking a leader seriously long before his term is over. His credibility is eroding faster than his administration can manufacture talking points, and his decision making appears detached from both political reality and global interests.
The expectation in Washington and abroad is equally harsh. A political tsunami is coming in the midterms, and it is likely to wipe out the Republican majority entirely. This is not partisan analysis, it is survival logic. Republicans know that tying themselves to Trump now is the fastest way to lose their seats, their influence and their future inside the party. The first quiet repositionings have already begun, and the calculation is simple. If they want to be in Congress next year, they cannot afford to be in Trump’s shadow this year.
And here is the part that foreign capitals talk about the most. No one is going to help Trump push through an unfair deal or a last minute political stunt in the months before his final and increasingly irrelevant year in office. Not Europe, not Asia, not the global institutions he keeps trying to strong arm. The world sees what is happening. They know the clock is running out. They know the next administration will be forced to rebuild credibility from scratch. Backing Trump now would only guarantee that the damage lasts longer.
I'm not entirely sure that this has fully penetrated Starmer's skull yet.
Actually I think it has, but the view is that the UK has burnt so many bridges that we literally cannot afford to end the US alliance. However I think that we must essentially accept the inevitable loosening of the relationship. The collapse of US diplomacy and covert intelligence under Trump is spectacular and shocking, but we still need to maintain a lockstep with Washington, especially if Le Pen.or an ally takes power in Paris. The UK is walking a very uncomfortable tight rope, but the time to jump is not yet.
And what about those that feel punished for paying for the children of others?
Whatever happened to civic society?
I read an article today suggesting the ills of society can all be laid at Thatcher's door including "right to buy" leading to today's housing crisis, the privatisation of utilities leading us to Thames Water and her making of Tony Blair and his turning the Labour Party we know and despise today, into a Thatcher-lite vehicle to promote a capitalist society.
Most of it resonated with me.
That’s too facile. What was the counter proposal to Thatcher in 1979? More strikes, more propping up failing industry? And Thatcher very much believed in helping people who needed help, just that she also believed people should do what they could for themselves.
Personally I blame credit cards. People now live a higher standard of living than they can actually afford. And it’s affected the national political approach too. Thatcher was determined to do two things - squeeze inflation out of the economy and balance the books. Now we have endemic budget deficits. I think our current crop,of politicos have been brought up with budget deficits and have normalised them.
Haven't heard credit cards blamed for a long time - not since ITV advertising was also blamed in the same breath!
I think it’s a real issue. People have forgotten or never learned how to save for things. Want it? Get it on credit.
And you know what? It’s mostly fine, for most people. But at a national level we are living beyond our means. Time for a reality check. Not coming Tuesday.
I seriously wonder if those sob stories of the wealthy are simply people who have extended themselves too far with current spending - never mind debt as you note - as to be vulnerable to any setback (and sometimes I'm sure they don't even let us know about the setbacks). And it's a total disaster if something like the violin lessons have to go because everything else is signed up or committed - which I can well understand from the child's p of v.
As for national economies, I remember discussing with DavidL how the balance of payments was a major element of the news on TV - visible and invisible exports, the need for better figures ... and how it has disappeared in recent decades.
Yes I’m sure you are right. It’s not exactly Micawber (end of year a penny in credit happy, end of year a penny in debt - disaster) but if you leave yourself no wriggle room
Comments
NEW THREAD
,,
Several foreign diplomats describe the situation in the same blunt terms. They say Trump is entering the most dangerous phase of any presidency, the moment when the world stops taking a leader seriously long before his term is over. His credibility is eroding faster than his administration can manufacture talking points, and his decision making appears detached from both political reality and global interests.
The expectation in Washington and abroad is equally harsh. A political tsunami is coming in the midterms, and it is likely to wipe out the Republican majority entirely. This is not partisan analysis, it is survival logic. Republicans know that tying themselves to Trump now is the fastest way to lose their seats, their influence and their future inside the party. The first quiet repositionings have already begun, and the calculation is simple. If they want to be in Congress next year, they cannot afford to be in Trump’s shadow this year.
And here is the part that foreign capitals talk about the most. No one is going to help Trump push through an unfair deal or a last minute political stunt in the months before his final and increasingly irrelevant year in office. Not Europe, not Asia, not the global institutions he keeps trying to strong arm. The world sees what is happening. They know the clock is running out. They know the next administration will be forced to rebuild credibility from scratch. Backing Trump now would only guarantee that the damage lasts longer.
In diplomatic language, they call it strategic distancing. In plain language, it means this: Trump is on his own.
https://x.com/Microinteracti1/status/1992622931503927452
I'm not entirely sure that this has fully penetrated Starmer's skull yet.
They've been considering it for several years; now is the time to grasp the nettle.
Viktor Orban has officially notified the European Commission that unless the European Union “immediately and unconditionally” supports the "peace plan" of Donald Trump, Hungary will block any and all forms of European aid for Ukraine.
https://x.com/Daractenus/status/1992582093587800395
The other large change is due indirectly to women entering the workforce at scale. This means first there are more dual-income households, but the double (or triple) whammy is that this means people marry within their class – doctors marry doctors instead of nurses or receptionists, for instance – which greatly reduces social mobility and multiplies the income differentials of high-earning, dual-income couples compared with low dual-income couples and singles.
You mention credit cards which illustrates another pernicious development. Not people living beyond their means but what economists call rent-seeking – middlemen taking a small chunk of every transaction between customer and supplier, and it's not just credit cards, it's the payment processors between the credit cards and the retailers, it's the online platforms and so on.