I confess I had never considered the railway uniforms were such an essential element of imperialism that it needed addressing. Wasn't Cricket also a part of it?
Yup.
One of the other major airbrushing going on is about the British Indian Army in WWII.
It’s bit embarrassing that it is the largest volunteer army in human history.
Doesn’t fit the evil colonialism storyline.
Modi's thing is to try and get people angry about stuff.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
The trouble is that at heart he isn't a politician.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
That is probably a good summary of it. Clearly there are people who deeply dislike him, but anecdotally it doesn't feel visceral, and more as though no one is putting much effort in defending him.
On here, outright hatred for Keir Starmer is a minority opinion. But here isn't representative. People genuinely hate him in a way I don't remember for previous PMs. From the article:
A YouGov poll last week found that he was more disliked by Britons than Benjamin Netanyahu or Hamas. At the weekend a far-right march against Starmer’s government in Bristol was met with a leftwing counter-protest bearing the slogan “We hate Keir Starmer more than you”.
Meanwhile the song itself has become a kind of standard, the soundtrack to our lives, perhaps even a unifying balm in troubled times. As well as the darts, you hear it at football grounds up and down the country, in nightclubs at 2am, at music festivals, pretty much anywhere large groups of young people congregate in a public place.
I have said this before, I am somewhat confused by how genuinely hated he is by the public.
Because he's the government at the moment and since the country lapsed into politica della fantasia with Brexit and all that came after, it's becoming ungovernable. The country has immense structural and sociological problems that have blocking minorities that impede all attempts at resolution.
This is nothing compared to how people will feel after 18 months of Farage as PM. I suspect and hope that he won't be able set foot outside without genuine fear for his life.
While I don't disagree with your central premise, for some reason Starmer seemed to cause this strong reaction, in a way that Sunak also a pretty boring middle manager type individual and way out of depth as a leader with no real clear policy strategy, never hit the heights of dislike. The Tory brand in general absolutely, but personally, Sunak the public reaction was more eye rolling.
Starmer has lots working against him, and nothing in his favour. He is the embodiment of an entitled, arrogant and incompetent political class that is widely seen to have failed at least since the financial crisis. He has no political judgement or charisma, and no experience in, or skill at, government beyond his very narrow experience as a prosecutor - and even there, he seems to have been mediocre at best. The left will always loathe him because the magic money tree dried up three years ago and he hasn't deposed Netanyahu yet, and the right will always resent him for failing to stop national economic decline and in many cases ethnic dilution. The non-political see prices and taxes going ever higher with no end in sight and no solutions provided to pressing social problems.
In addition, like many senior politicians, he has a huge sense of personal entitlement, as shown in the Free Gear scandals, and he seems incapable of saying clearly what his government is for, or in sticking to unpopular decisions he believes to be right.
Given all that, what's surprising is perhaps not that he's so unpopular, but that he has any support at all.
I think he's fundamentally not respected, and therefore held in contempt.
Rogan: "You don't want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching up people — many of which turn out to be U.S. citizens that just don't have their papers on them. Are we really gonna be the Gestapo, 'Where's your papers?' Is that what we've come to?" https://x.com/OfTheBraveUSA/status/2011153857976668290
I don't have a telegraph account - is the whole digital id scheme being scrapped, or just the bit about needing it for employment for migrants? I can only see the sub-heading which says "Migrants will no longer need to show identity cards to prove right to work".
The digital ID was more than just "I seem a bit foreign - here's my ID" though, wasn't it? Or am I muddling it with the Blair-era one where it was a blanket "Show your card, citizen" vibe?
This one was the just massive database but without the actual card.
They thought that it was the card people objected to in the Blair era. Well they didn’t really, but thought the public could be hoodwinked by that argument.
Compare and contrast the British and USA approaches to making foreign looking people carry ID at all times.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
Yes, I think that rings true. If you can fight for something passionately (even if it’s the status quo) it allows people to believe in you and support you as one of them.
Starmer is nothing much to anyone. He has spent excessive amounts of political capital running around trying to appease all sorts of different sections of the electorate, only to caveat, row back and disavow pretty much all of it, whilst claiming it is his settled belief.
Political masters can land that sort of extreme doublethink. But those people are rarer than hen’s teeth. Blair was one. Cameron managed it on occasion. Starmer is not one of those people.
He campaigned in 2017 on accepting the referendum result ‘as a matter of principle’, then spent two years blocking every deal and ended up demanding a second referendum. That’s who he was, is and always will be; an unlikeable, two faced, boring snide.
He’s a vegetarian out of principle, wouldn’t let his kids eat meat, but scoffs chicken if he’s hungry. I just don’t get how people don’t see this as a major character flaw.
That's a very good summary.
Fundamentally, the guy is disingenuous to everyone.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
The trouble is that at heart he isn't a politician.
Rogan: "You don't want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching up people — many of which turn out to be U.S. citizens that just don't have their papers on them. Are we really gonna be the Gestapo, 'Where's your papers?' Is that what we've come to?" https://x.com/OfTheBraveUSA/status/2011153857976668290
Yes they really are. And it's gone well beyond "where's your papers ?"
This woman looked horrified while she frantically tried to explain to the ICE agents ripping her out of the car that she’s disabled and was on her way to the doctor, then other agents in the background try to shield the scene from photographers.
Impeachment of Noem, let alone her boss, will not be enough. When this fiasco is over there are going to need to be actual, criminal trials. Meanwhile, things seem set to get a lot, lot worse. Trump is systematically destroying American power. The end if the US Dollar hegemony seems only weeks away.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
I confess I had never considered the railway uniforms were such an essential element of imperialism that it needed addressing. Wasn't Cricket also a part of it?
Yup.
One of the other major airbrushing going on is about the British Indian Army in WWII.
It’s bit embarrassing that it is the largest volunteer army in human history.
Doesn’t fit the evil colonialism storyline.
Modi's thing is to try and get people angry about stuff.
Modi is a more effective form of Trump. His politics are nakedly sectarian, promoting a Hindutva vision of India that has no place for other religions of that very diverse land.
One recent addition is the large gold painted statues on roundabouts of independence leaders. These are now a common feature of Indian towns and cities. Every one is of a Hindu, not a single one of a Muslim or Sikh activist, though there were many. Very little mention that the murderer of Ghandi was a Hindutva activist either.
I have been to India twice, in the nineties and again more recently. It is a a country that is transforming and modernising at great speed. Poverty was much less on my second visit, but there was some anti-British feeling that I didn't sense 30 years ago. Maybe it was just the places I went.
I quite recommend the recent smash hit movie "RRR" on Netflix in order to get a feel for modrrn India's perspective on colonialism and Hindu nationalism. It is a rolicking tale with spectacular CGI, but the Hindutva undertones are a bit uncimfortable for Brits, and to say the plot deviates from history is rather an understatement.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
It's not in 'a bit of bother.' It's in a lot of bother. £5.5 billion worth of debt bother.
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
It's not in 'a bit of bother.' It's in a lot of bother. £5.5 billion worth of debt bother.
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
A merger wouldn’t be allowed - but having £6bn of debt to pay off means that you don’t have spare cash to pay for store improvements or promotions.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
Both are Private Equity 'vehicles' where the underlying property assets are the valuable bit. The operating parts (retail) are run at a rate to keep the interest payments on the loaded debt paid. If the retail bit fails and takes the management with it, the property is still there to pay the PE guys and banks. The PE guys are quite happy to merge, strip and load with more debt.
It's a bit like the Post Office. Massive property portfolio in central locations just begging to be rationalised and (some of) the property put to better use.
@TSE@Casino_Royale It’s pretty nauseating to see the millions of Indians who fought the Axis being disparaged, whilst glorifying the small fraction who fought for the Nazis and Japanese.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
It's not in 'a bit of bother.' It's in a lot of bother. £5.5 billion worth of debt bother.
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
That shouldn't really have been a viable business model, should it?
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
We will feel fine as long as we don't get to see the consequences. And the Iranian government will be more than happy to co-operate with that.
New series of Culinary Culture Wars just finished on Netflix. For those who are interested in Korean cuisine, it's Masterchef with a few Michelin stars thrown in, and the aesthetics of Squid Game.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
We will feel fine as long as we don't get to see the consequences. And the Iranian government will be more than happy to co-operate with that.
Iranians were the third most frequent nationality amongst asylum seekers last year in the UK at a little over 8 000.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
It's not in 'a bit of bother.' It's in a lot of bother. £5.5 billion worth of debt bother.
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
That shouldn't really have been a viable business model, should it?
They bought with the expectation that interest rates would remain lower long enough for a part of the debt could be paid off (sorry, I meant another large dividend).
As for those sites having much value without a supermarket attached to them - I’m not so sure. If I look in the last large Tesco I visited that had a separate firm selling clothes and both Holland and Barratt and Greggs inside the store
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
The trouble is that at heart he isn't a politician.
Same as George Lazenby wasn't really an actor.
Point of order: most people hate politicians!
Yes, but they have a set of skills in making arguments, building coalitions and bases of support, working out the sweet spot for a deal that's sellable, storytelling, setting out a vision, an instinct for how policies will land etc.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
It's not in 'a bit of bother.' It's in a lot of bother. £5.5 billion worth of debt bother.
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
That shouldn't really have been a viable business model, should it?
It's a very viable business model.
Borrow a lot of money to buy a cash generative business, borrow a lot more money through the business to pay yourself back plus a bit more, and gracefully exit before the shit hits the fan.
If you can get away with it, your credit fit borrowing again is great.
Shame about the business, of course.
Of course it's often a lot more complicated (as in the case of ASDA, which was originally bought by Walmart).
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
That would suggest the last two leaders for Labour had no real ambition for the top job (though once there certainly took to it).
Starmer was floated as a potential Leadership candidate weeks after becoming an MP, if he had no ambitions in that direction the people who saw something in him even then were very mistaken about him.
People love lawyers, I think an outsider like this gathers support.
I remember in 1997 people thought Archie Norman should run for the leadership/would do so in the future because being Chief Exec of Asda is the perfect finishing school to be Tory leader/PM.
Great point. If you have ever been to ASDA recently you'll see its rundown, understaffed and suffering from a weight of debt. Perfect example of anything run by a Conservative.
Rumour is that a merger with Morrisons could be on the cards.
The analogy in politics would be….
Good morning, everyone.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
Both are Private Equity 'vehicles' where the underlying property assets are the valuable bit. The operating parts (retail) are run at a rate to keep the interest payments on the loaded debt paid. If the retail bit fails and takes the management with it, the property is still there to pay the PE guys and banks. The PE guys are quite happy to merge, strip and load with more debt.
It's a bit like the Post Office. Massive property portfolio in central locations just begging to be rationalised and (some of) the property put to better use.
The Post Office and Royal Mail went through that years back. In my first national job visiting sorting offices, there were times I didn’t bother checking where it was, because invariably it would be next to the railway station. Nowadays it will be out on the ring road, or in the next town. And the Post Office was targeted by the government decades back on ROCE, and they quickly worked out that the quickest way to achieve the target was to reduce the CE by selling their post offices and leasing them back. Hence, even when they had ‘proper’ post offices, they mostly had landlords. Nowadays, a crown post office is a rare thing indeed.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
There seems to be a league table of acceptability for refugees: Ukrainians at the top, Hong Kong Chinese shortly behind and brown men of fighting age at the bottom. I fear the reality of Iranian refugees would tend towards the bottom half of that league.
There have of course been other useless prime ministers in our time: prime ministers who have started wars, killed thousands through neglect or cruelty, plunged millions into poverty, been duplicitous or corrupt, who have been turfed out in disgrace. But with the brief exception of Liz Truss, even the most divisive of them took years to become the focal point of mass rage. Starmer has managed to hit the sweet spot within barely a year. People genuinely, viscerally loathe this guy. Why him? Why now? And why like this?
Do they ? I think he's fairly crap, but rage ? Don't be daft.
His problem is that unlike most recent prime ministers, he doesn’t command the partisan loyalty of his own tribe. Hence the deep trough in net ratings.
A divisive, partisan tribalist would maintain a base level of support even if they were deeply crap.
I am more and more persuaded by the theory that Starmer never wanted to be an MP/the summit of his ambition was to be Attorney-General/Lord Chancellor.
He stood down as DPP in late 2013 and there was a narrow window for him to decide to become an MP, had there been a longer period between standing down and the next general election he would have decided politics wasn't for him.
I suspect had Corbyn and Brexit not happened he would have achieved his summit.
The trouble is that at heart he isn't a politician.
Same as George Lazenby wasn't really an actor.
Point of order: most people hate politicians!
Yes, but they have a set of skills in making arguments, building coalitions and bases of support, working out the sweet spot for a deal that's sellable, storytelling, setting out a vision, an instinct for how policies will land etc.
How many of those does Starmer have?
Being able to deliver change and knowing how to make things work is worth more than all of those you mentioned put together. The regret is that he doesn’t appear to have these, either.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
There seems to be a league table of acceptability for refugees: Ukrainians at the top, Hong Kong Chinese shortly behind and brown men of fighting age at the bottom. I fear the reality of Iranian refugees would tend towards the bottom half of that league.
It will be the same order used to report the casualties in an earthquake or plane crash on the news.
I confess I had never considered the railway uniforms were such an essential element of imperialism that it needed addressing. Wasn't Cricket also a part of it?
Yup.
One of the other major airbrushing going on is about the British Indian Army in WWII.
It’s bit embarrassing that it is the largest volunteer army in human history.
Doesn’t fit the evil colonialism storyline.
Modi's thing is to try and get people angry about stuff.
Modi is a more effective form of Trump. His politics are nakedly sectarian, promoting a Hindutva vision of India that has no place for other religions of that very diverse land.
One recent addition is the large gold painted statues on roundabouts of independence leaders. These are now a common feature of Indian towns and cities. Every one is of a Hindu, not a single one of a Muslim or Sikh activist, though there were many. Very little mention that the murderer of Ghandi was a Hindutva activist either.
I have been to India twice, in the nineties and again more recently. It is a a country that is transforming and modernising at great speed. Poverty was much less on my second visit, but there was some anti-British feeling that I didn't sense 30 years ago. Maybe it was just the places I went.
I quite recommend the recent smash hit movie "RRR" on Netflix in order to get a feel for modrrn India's perspective on colonialism and Hindu nationalism. It is a rolicking tale with spectacular CGI, but the Hindutva undertones are a bit uncimfortable for Brits, and to say the plot deviates from history is rather an understatement.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
I think we all have human sympathy with anyone who's been repressed and crushed.
But the brutal reality is there are 92 million of them, and the numbers will be an issue.
And that's not the only nasty regime in the world either. Sadly, far from it.
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
We will feel fine as long as we don't get to see the consequences. And the Iranian government will be more than happy to co-operate with that.
Iranians were the third most frequent nationality amongst asylum seekers last year in the UK at a little over 8 000.
Are they really economic migrants like so many here opine? Or genuinely fleeing persecution?
We've allowed the discourse around immigration and about asylum to be conflated. We had control of our borders and decided (many governments) to let lots of people in, be in the Eastern European wave under Blair (expecting a few thousand, turned out to be hundreds of thousands) or the Boris wave. The increases have undoubtedly caused some issues (while probably helping in other ways). But the asylum number is actually pretty small and definitely compared to other similar nations.
That said no one is doing this for just one reason. It might be a mix of persecution, fear, etc combined with trying to make a better life.
I confess I had never considered the railway uniforms were such an essential element of imperialism that it needed addressing. Wasn't Cricket also a part of it?
Yup.
One of the other major airbrushing going on is about the British Indian Army in WWII.
It’s bit embarrassing that it is the largest volunteer army in human history.
Doesn’t fit the evil colonialism storyline.
Modi's thing is to try and get people angry about stuff.
Modi is a more effective form of Trump. His politics are nakedly sectarian, promoting a Hindutva vision of India that has no place for other religions of that very diverse land.
One recent addition is the large gold painted statues on roundabouts of independence leaders. These are now a common feature of Indian towns and cities. Every one is of a Hindu, not a single one of a Muslim or Sikh activist, though there were many. Very little mention that the murderer of Ghandi was a Hindutva activist either.
I have been to India twice, in the nineties and again more recently. It is a a country that is transforming and modernising at great speed. Poverty was much less on my second visit, but there was some anti-British feeling that I didn't sense 30 years ago. Maybe it was just the places I went.
I quite recommend the recent smash hit movie "RRR" on Netflix in order to get a feel for modrrn India's perspective on colonialism and Hindu nationalism. It is a rolicking tale with spectacular CGI, but the Hindutva undertones are a bit uncimfortable for Brits, and to say the plot deviates from history is rather an understatement.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/10-downing-street#larry-chief-mouser-to-the-cabinet-office
Larry, The Downing Street Cat - it's my 19th Birthday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnrr7-yVYfM
Same as George Lazenby wasn't really an actor.
Fundamentally, the guy is disingenuous to everyone.
The analogy in politics would be….
Trump is systematically destroying American power. The end if the US Dollar hegemony seems only weeks away.
Isn't Morrisons in a bit of bother too? Or did I imagine hearing about that a year or two ago?
One recent addition is the large gold painted statues on roundabouts of independence leaders. These are now a common feature of Indian towns and cities. Every one is of a Hindu, not a single one of a Muslim or Sikh activist, though there were many. Very little mention that the murderer of Ghandi was a Hindutva activist either.
I have been to India twice, in the nineties and again more recently. It is a a country that is transforming and modernising at great speed. Poverty was much less on my second visit, but there was some anti-British feeling that I didn't sense 30 years ago. Maybe it was just the places I went.
I quite recommend the recent smash hit movie "RRR" on Netflix in order to get a feel for modrrn India's perspective on colonialism and Hindu nationalism. It is a rolicking tale with spectacular CGI, but the Hindutva undertones are a bit uncimfortable for Brits, and to say the plot deviates from history is rather an understatement.
https://youtu.be/19sqGqY1Cwg?si=poK3fkGZRBHlAfYa
And for the same reason Asda is - it was bought out with a debt mountain by vultures, er, private equity firms just as interest rates rose dramatically and people started shopping in smaller, cheaper stores.
It's a bit like the Post Office. Massive property portfolio in central locations just begging to be rationalised and (some of) the property put to better use.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/13/hundreds-of-gunshot-eye-injuries-found-in-one-iranian-hospital-amid-brutal-crackdown-on-protests?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
How does PB now feel about the validity of Iranian asylum seekers fleeing such a regime? There is likely to be a fresh wave if the government wins there. In particular how does Farage's plan to send them straight back to the arms of the Mullahs feel?
For those who are interested in Korean cuisine, it's Masterchef with a few Michelin stars thrown in, and the aesthetics of Squid Game.
Recommended.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk
Are they really economic migrants like so many here opine? Or genuinely fleeing persecution?
As for those sites having much value without a supermarket attached to them - I’m not so sure. If I look in the last large Tesco I visited that had a separate firm selling clothes and both Holland and Barratt and Greggs inside the store
How many of those does Starmer have?
Borrow a lot of money to buy a cash generative business, borrow a lot more money through the business to pay yourself back plus a bit more, and gracefully exit before the shit hits the fan.
If you can get away with it, your credit fit borrowing again is great.
Shame about the business, of course.
Of course it's often a lot more complicated (as in the case of ASDA, which was originally bought by Walmart).
NEW THREAD
But the brutal reality is there are 92 million of them, and the numbers will be an issue.
And that's not the only nasty regime in the world either. Sadly, far from it.
That said no one is doing this for just one reason. It might be a mix of persecution, fear, etc combined with trying to make a better life.
It is worth a watch even if tough on historical purists!