This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
But not sure of the politics of this announcement. Doesn’t it just highlight to people who hadn’t noticed that the Greens have lots of bonkers policies?
I suspect some people think, apparently with good reason, minor parties with bonkers policies tend to water them down a bit when there is an actual chance of becoming a major party.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
Honestly expected Reform to do better than that
It has them in the lead on votes in 3 councils - Barking, Havering and Bromley. LDs in 4 - the 3 they hold plus Merton Greens in 4 (Hackney, Lewisham plus another 2) Tories in 5 - Hillingdon, Harrow, Kensington, Bexley and Barnet 1 TCTC (Croydon i think) Other 16 Labour
That's councils in which the party is in the lead, but it's not necessarily a majority. How many of those end up NOC will be interesting!
YouGovs page has 7 Labour, 4 Tory, 3 LD and 1 Ref as 'clear lead' rather than competitive
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Why would the police decide any of those images are of an illegal nature? Why are you raising this point about the Emily Hart case, an AI-generated simulacrum of an adult woman?
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
The arrest itself will appear on a number of background checks.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Why would the police decide any of those images are of an illegal nature? Why are you raising this point about the Emily Hart case, an AI-generated simulacrum of an adult woman?
Why would the police do any number of wacky things?
They have acted in such ways in the past.
And that is before malevolence on their part comes into it. See Forest Gate…
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
There was a fundamental dishonesty involved, which is what makes it a grift. The people he was selling to thought they were buying photos from a real woman, and so they were deceived.
Now, to a certain extent, if the photos were sold by a real woman there could still be an element of grift, in that the people buying photos would be encouraged to believe that they were doing so as part of a relationship with the seller. A lot of these sorts of para-social relationships between content creators and their customers can be a bit problematic, leading to issues at both ends.
But what is the intrinsic difference between buying photos of a real woman vs a simulacrum? You are still just getting an image.
Its an interesting thought. Would an AI image a child porn be legal, bit not a photo of real child porn (clearly not).
IANAL (thank god) but would assume the the offence of possession of an image is unaffected but that creation of an AI image may be different
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
One of my jury service cases was about possession of CSA material. The guilty verdict was clearly justified on the evidence and on the wording of the law as it stands, and I had no qualm with it in that case, but it is shocking just how easy it is to be guilty of the "making" of an image and how ill suited the law is to the digital world we live in now.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
Honestly expected Reform to do better than that
Beyond the outer suburbs Reform won't win in London and they don't need to either. London is likely to be the best result for the Tories in May as it is the only UK region the Tories will likely still beat Reform so they will then be the main gainers from Labour. Hence it has the Tories picking up Barnet and holding all their other London councils except Bromley
That doesn't look like the Tories "will then be the main gainers from Labour". That's predicting the Greens being the main gainers from Labour.
Not in Tory held seats in 2022 in the suburbs and wealthy West London which went Labour, those are the main Tory London target seats. So an entirely different pond from formerly safe Labour inner London seats the Greens are targeting
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
Then of course Labour can with other opposition parties vote down Plaid legislation in the Senedd
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Why would the police decide any of those images are of an illegal nature? Why are you raising this point about the Emily Hart case, an AI-generated simulacrum of an adult woman?
Why would the police do any number of wacky things?
They have acted in such ways in the past.
And that is before malevolence on their part comes into it. See Forest Gate…
I would advise extreme caution.
About what? The NY Post article, which you are commenting on, contains an AI-generated image of a fake adult woman in a bikini. People do not need to be cautious about those sorts of images. There is nothing borderline or concerning here. I remain unclear why you are repeatedly posting dire warnings in this case...?????
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
Honestly expected Reform to do better than that
Beyond the outer suburbs Reform won't win in London and they don't need to either. London is likely to be the best result for the Tories in May as it is the only UK region the Tories will likely still beat Reform so they will then be the main gainers from Labour. Hence it has the Tories picking up Barnet and holding all their other London councils except Bromley
That doesn't look like the Tories "will then be the main gainers from Labour". That's predicting the Greens being the main gainers from Labour.
Not in Tory held seats in 2022 in the suburbs and wealthy West London which went Labour, those are the main Tory London target seats. So an entirely different pond from formerly safe Labour inner London seats the Greens are targeting
So, in the seats where the Tories should do well, the Tories will do well.
Not certain that's particularly insightful, but, sure, it's true.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
Then of course Labour can with other opposition parties vote down Plaid legislation in the Senedd
If they do that against the wishes of the Welsh people, they will become even more toxic.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
The arrest itself will appear on a number of background checks.
Only if an enhanced background check, once spent an arrest won't show up on a standard background check either
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
There was a fundamental dishonesty involved, which is what makes it a grift. The people he was selling to thought they were buying photos from a real woman, and so they were deceived.
Now, to a certain extent, if the photos were sold by a real woman there could still be an element of grift, in that the people buying photos would be encouraged to believe that they were doing so as part of a relationship with the seller. A lot of these sorts of para-social relationships between content creators and their customers can be a bit problematic, leading to issues at both ends.
But what is the intrinsic difference between buying photos of a real woman vs a simulacrum? You are still just getting an image.
Its an interesting thought. Would an AI image a child porn be legal, bit not a photo of real child porn (clearly not).
IANAL (thank god) but would assume the the offence of possession of an image is unaffected but that creation of an AI image may be different
IANAL either but I believe opening an image on your browser is "making an image" - that's why you often get news strories saying "made 10,000s of pictures"
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
Then of course Labour can with other opposition parties vote down Plaid legislation in the Senedd
If they do that against the wishes of the Welsh people, they will become even more toxic.
If Plaid fail to win a majority, then clearly nothing against the wishes of the Welsh people for opposition parties to block their legislation
Hey @HYUFD can you have a word through the party machinery. When Kemi slows down, goes methodically after the issue with facts and addresses Big Issues she is brutal. A massive contrast to when she bangs away at pace and growing hysteria about some culture war nonsense.
Genuinely the best I have *ever* seen her at the dispatch box. She's tearing Starmer apart.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
He doesn't seem to know his own mind unless somebody comes and spells it out to him.
He read the report mentioning Mandelson being a director of Sistema but nobody told him about the red flags? It's incredible, to use Starmer's own words.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
There's a bit "dodgy" and there's a clear and present full on danger to national security.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
There's a bit "dodgy" and there's a clear and present full on danger to national security.
Well yes. But again all of that was surely pretty clear at the time - and as I’ve said before a lot of people went along with it.
Starmer made a very bad call in hindsight and as I’ve said should have immediately resigned for that alone. But it was a calculated risk to deal with Trump, that much is obvious.
This Scammer Used an AI-Generated MAGA Girl to Grift ‘Super Dumb’ Men
A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
Like many medical school students, Sam was broke.
The 22-year-old aspiring orthopedic surgeon from northern India got some money from his parents, but he says he spent most of it subsidizing his licensing exams, and he’s still saving up to hopefully emigrate to the US after graduation. So he started searching for ways to make additional money online.
Sam, who requested a pseudonym to avoid jeopardizing his medical career and immigration status, tried a few things, with varying degrees of legitimacy and success. He made YouTube shorts and sold study notes to other med students. It wasn’t until he started scrolling through his Instagram feed that he landed on an idea: Why not make an AI-generated girl using Google Gemini’s Nano Banana Pro and sell bikini photos of her online?
But when Sam started posting generic photos of a beautiful, scantily clad woman on Instagram, he was dismayed to find that none of the content was hitting. He turned to Gemini for advice. “If you create a generic ‘hot girl,’ you’re competing with a million other models,” it said, according to a transcript Sam provided to WIRED.
Haven’t read the article yet (although skimmed it and disappointed that there were no photos of “Emily hart”!)
But I’m not it’s fair to call that “grift”. He worked to create a product - albeit ephemeral- which people were prepared to pay for. Isn’t that just capitalism?
Here’s some photos of Emily Hart.
FYI don’t open this link when your other half is about.
Do you think the creator made her look purposefully so young to appeal to a demographic of Magas? Quite grim.
Warning notice
Under UK law images which are generated but represent such illegal activity, are a criminal offence to possess.
If you open one, then it’s probably cached on your computer/device.
People have lost jobs and gone to prison for such.
It’s the images from the wired article which was linked by TSE.
Yes.
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
Once a conviction is spent it won't show up on a background check unless applying to work with children or a very sensitive job dealing with security issues etc
I am old and out of date, and my last job application (other than internal promotion) was over 20 years ago. This story interested me and some of you can throw light on it.
See this bit "Since late February, Karyna has been applying daily, often to around 20 roles a day, while balancing studies, work and running a small business upcycling vintage blazers."
When I was applying for jobs I would take time to make sure my application was right for the post - what were they looking for, what evidence am I providing that I can do the role etc.
Now I suppose things are different and these may be simple online applications, but maybe she's doing something wrong too?
From the BBC piece linked: She is currently completing a masters at Cardiff University in governance and devolution.
I think I begin to understand why she is unemployable. I doubt she would have this problem if her chosen subject was say maths.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Keir Starmer confirms that he attempted to secure his former director of communications Matthew Doyle an ambassadorship
Sir Olly Robbins said he was asked by Number 10 to look into options without telling David Lammy, the then foreign secretary. He said he found it 'uncomfortable' because Doyle did not have the credentials to become an ambassador
Starmer subsequently elevated Doyle to the Lords. He has had the whip suspended after it emerged that he had supported a sex offender post charge
Starmer: 'Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as PM and other ministers. When people leave roles there are often conversations about other roles, but nothing came of this'
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
It would be quite funny if Burnham resigns as Mayor to run for parliament and the next day Starmer resigns and sets the timeline so it is before Burnham is elected
I would imagine that Starmer would want Labour to do well after he's gone, so if he decides to go he may well help rather than hinder Burnham. Is that being naive?
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
It would be quite funny if Burnham resigns as Mayor to run for parliament and the next day Starmer resigns and sets the timeline so it is before Burnham is elected
I would imagine that Starmer would want Labour to do well after he's gone, so if he decides to go he may well help rather than hinder Burnham. Is that being naive?
Nah it’s pretty much exactly what I’ve heard. I don’t think Starmer minds if Burnham succeeds him.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
He *thinks* he rarely makes mistakes. His premiership resembles the scene in the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob steps on rakes, continuously.
It makes you wonder what happened in previous jobs - was he fucking up non-stop and devolving blame?
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
It would be quite funny if Burnham resigns as Mayor to run for parliament and the next day Starmer resigns and sets the timeline so it is before Burnham is elected
I would imagine that Starmer would want Labour to do well after he's gone, so if he decides to go he may well help rather than hinder Burnham. Is that being naive?
I think thats right. I am sure he has a view on who would do a good job, but he will probably realise that his endorsement isnt that helpful to any of the replacement candidates.
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
It would be quite funny if Burnham resigns as Mayor to run for parliament and the next day Starmer resigns and sets the timeline so it is before Burnham is elected
I would imagine that Starmer would want Labour to do well after he's gone, so if he decides to go he may well help rather than hinder Burnham. Is that being naive?
I think thats right. I am sure he has a view on who would do a good job, but he will probably realise that his endorsement isnt that helpful to any of the replacement candidates.
The reason he’s still there is essentially as a shield for any bad stuff that is coming around the track.
MPs are clearly waiting for Burnham to get into Parliament. I do not foresee any move until that occurs. I stand by my view that Burnham will be in Parliament by the end of this year.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
He *thinks* he rarely makes mistakes. His premiership resembles the scene in the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob steps on rakes, continuously.
It makes you wonder what happened in previous jobs - was he fucking up non-stop and devolving blame?
Starmer = "doesn't think he makes mistakes" is like Boris = doesn't think he really lies, just minor fibs.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
There's a bit "dodgy" and there's a clear and present full on danger to national security.
Well yes. But again all of that was surely pretty clear at the time - and as I’ve said before a lot of people went along with it.
Starmer made a very bad call in hindsight and as I’ve said should have immediately resigned for that alone. But it was a calculated risk to deal with Trump, that much is obvious.
How do we know why the appointment was made? Has anyone told us? I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to confirm that it was to do with Trump. On the contrary, I have heard it said that Dame Karen Pierce had done an excellent job and that she was held in high regard at the White House. I don't think we do know why Mandeleson was so favored. We could do with an answer on that one. In fact it's the kind of thing Kemi might well put to Starmer when she gets the chance, preferably in a public questioning.
I have heard it suggested that it was driven by Morgan McSweeney, which would be worrying if true. That would further undermine Starmer's reputation for making sensible appointments.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
There's a bit "dodgy" and there's a clear and present full on danger to national security.
Well yes. But again all of that was surely pretty clear at the time - and as I’ve said before a lot of people went along with it.
Starmer made a very bad call in hindsight and as I’ve said should have immediately resigned for that alone. But it was a calculated risk to deal with Trump, that much is obvious.
How do we know why the appointment was made? Has anyone told us? I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to confirm that it was to do with Trump. On the contrary, I have heard it said that Dame Karen Pierce had done an excellent job and that she was held in high regard at the White House. I don't think we do know why Mandeleson was so favored. We could do with an answer on that one. In fact it's the kind of thing Kemi might well put to Starmer when she gets the chance, preferably in a public questioning.
I have heard it suggested that it was driven by Morgan McSweeney, which would be worrying if true. That would further undermine Starmer's reputation for making sensible appointments.
But we just don't know.
They wanted a Labour guy to deal with Trump, so they chose Mandelson. They didn’t want somebody the Tories liked.
It was silly partisanship that started it, of that I am of no doubt.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
I accept that as a fair criticism; perhaps I should have put 'rarely makes a major error resulting in public scrutiny'!
I do think though that it would much better for the Party and, more importantly, the country, if he threw himself on the mercy of the house. People in general tend to be generous to people, even very senior people, who admit to an error.
I conclude that Starmer is now a worse PM than Sunak. Better than Johnson and Truss but virtually anyone is.
I’m honestly incredibly depressed about it. I really didn’t think it would end up like this, I thought he’d be boring but basically honest and competent. And he’s turned out to be none of those things.
He must never lead Labour into another general election on principle alone. Consider me hitched to the Burnham train reluctantly.
Digging slightly into Trump's participation in the "USA 250" Bible reading event, sponsored by the Museum of the Bible (itself funded by the Green family of Hobby Lobby), the segment someone gave him is interesting - a core text of Christian Nationalism, which tries to find reasons to impose a version of the Old Testament societal laws in 2026. Ask a Jewish person what they think of that.
The coverage has mainly been of this sentence, which sounds quite fluffy in isolation:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14).
I won't put it all here, but it is God appearing to Solomon, and includes a call to Solomon to build the temple (aka metaphorical ballroom?), promises blessings if the nation does "all I command, and observe my decrees and laws". On the other hand, destruction is promised for failure to do so.
It's a very nice fit for the USA's Manifest Destiny dream/self-image, and has an appeal within the system of dogma invented around the idea of Rapture and Imminent Return plus Restoration of Israel. That is despite the whole idea being essentially ruled out (even in a normal evangelical worldview) in the New Testament, which is about the creation of a "new covenant", rather than reimposing an old one.
One can also understand why it is all a bit incomprehensible to a purely secular mindset.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
Kemi: "why would you put a man with links to the Kremlin as our man in washington?"
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
This is the thing that people can’t or won’t understand.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
There's a bit "dodgy" and there's a clear and present full on danger to national security.
Well yes. But again all of that was surely pretty clear at the time - and as I’ve said before a lot of people went along with it.
Starmer made a very bad call in hindsight and as I’ve said should have immediately resigned for that alone. But it was a calculated risk to deal with Trump, that much is obvious.
How do we know why the appointment was made? Has anyone told us? I'm not aware of any compelling evidence to confirm that it was to do with Trump. On the contrary, I have heard it said that Dame Karen Pierce had done an excellent job and that she was held in high regard at the White House. I don't think we do know why Mandeleson was so favored. We could do with an answer on that one. In fact it's the kind of thing Kemi might well put to Starmer when she gets the chance, preferably in a public questioning.
I have heard it suggested that it was driven by Morgan McSweeney, which would be worrying if true. That would further undermine Starmer's reputation for making sensible appointments.
But we just don't know.
It seems highly likely it was driven by Mandelson via McSweeney, maybe McSweeney will eventually reveal all.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante. Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't. I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Not sure "rarely makes an error". Although he loves to boast about his time as DPP, there were plenty of mistakes, none of which ever hit of his desk of course. The story of an amazingly run faultless CPS is for the birds. There were some absolute shit show examples. The difference is now the magnifying glass he is under for every slip up and there will be 100s of journalists always scurrying around looking into each and every statement made on such a slip up. And his time of PM has contained consistent "errors".
I accept that as a fair criticism; perhaps I should have put 'rarely makes a major error resulting in public scrutiny'!
I do think though that it would much better for the Party and, more importantly, the country, if he threw himself on the mercy of the house. People in general tend to be generous to people, even very senior people, who admit to an error.
To be fair, he did say he was wrong to have appointed Mandelson and he apologised again.
Unfortunately, everything he's done since then has been a disaster. It's plainly obvious resigning then was the right call as I said at the time.
Before Burnham's abortive coup a few months ago a long time friend gave me chapter and verse. Because I thought it indiscreet and I wasn't completely certain about its accuracy I didn't repeat it on here.
I met him a few weeks later and congratulated him on being correct. I asked him where he got his information and he proudly told me. It was 100% watertight. His source was an unimpeachable client and he was proud to tell me who and how he knew him. He didn't even tell me to keep it to myself. Well he now tells me history is about to repeat itself.
Another abortive coup ?
A Burnham coup to the advantage of Burnham (ie becoming PM) requires a few imponderables, and without thinking them through remains either useless or only to the benefit of someone else.
Vacant seat Being nominated Winning it Getting enough MPs to back you Winning the subsequent battle in which Burnham's ego is faced by other egos.
Also: ensuring the PM doesn't time a resignation to forestall you.
Each stage reduces the chance and increases the odds. The current 8/1 is too short. Can Roger outline the plan? I can't see it happening successfully.
It would be quite funny if Burnham resigns as Mayor to run for parliament and the next day Starmer resigns and sets the timeline so it is before Burnham is elected
I would imagine that Starmer would want Labour to do well after he's gone, so if he decides to go he may well help rather than hinder Burnham. Is that being naive?
Yes. What gives you the impression Starmer cares about anything apart from himself?
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
No. Anyone with a functional brain would have thought she had a shocker. It wasn't that Starmer was effective. It is just she wasn't.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
He was doomed as soon as soon as he didn't quit after Mandelson was sacked.
If he hadn't U-turned on benefit reform he could have dug in on policy terms. But he didn't. The only thing - ONLY thing! - he has got is Iran. That's it.
The hole Starmer has dug himself into is that he has nothing else to anchor himself to. No big strategy, no grand plan to see through. Blair weathered all kinds of mess and would have walked through this because people basically could see what he was trying to do. To be fair I think Johnson despite all my hatred for him, got by on at least pretending to have a plan for quite a while too. Same with Cameron and Osborne.
I am afraid I can only conclude what many have said that I didn't believe at the time but I now concede I was completely wrong: Starmer is completely empty. He is totally incapable of planning or doing politics of any kind. When you understand this, it all makes sense. There is absolutely nothing there.
Therefore on the basis that Burnham has at least one idea from what I can tell, he's better by default.
I don't regret for voting for Starmer. But I do regret that he's still there.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
If the PM doesn’t want to go over this then he won’t. That’s the simple conclusion here. He’s taken the calculation that he can solider through this and that there’s no smoking gun that will finish him off immediately. That is I think correct, but the drip-drip causes continuing damage.
It’s only a matter of time now but we just don’t quite know when that will be. I think those who have said that he stays in post largely because there isn’t an immediately obvious successor are correct on that front.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
We now get into the legal and non-legal definitions of what "applying pressure" can mean....I bit like pass / failing vetting....
'just fucking approve it' sounds like pressure to a non-lawyer like me.
“Just fucking approve it, or else,” is the application of pressure. “Just fucking approve it,” is a strong statement of desire for something, but not pressure…???
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
This is likely to be the last PMQs of the parliamentary session
The prime minister is planning to send MPs away next Tuesday, more than a week before the public goes to the polls for the elections on May 7. It won't be back until May 13
Backbenchers have been told to expect the prorogation of parliament to happen next Tuesday evening. Number 10 is said to want to avoid further questions about the appointment of Mandelson before the elections
And I have concluded that is why MPs have not moved.
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Labour have to be careful about this though. If they are seen to be fixating on internal party machinations to get Burnham into parliament at all costs purely on the basis of replacing Starmer in some weird deal, it could come back to bite them.
And I have concluded that is why MPs have not moved.
They are waiting for Burnham, that’s all there is to it.
Labour have to be careful about this though. If they are seen to be fixating on internal party machinations to get Burnham into parliament at all costs purely on the basis of replacing Starmer in some weird deal, it could come back to bite them.
Particularly being as Burnham is a venal t***.
He wouldn't be my choice but the choices are getting smaller. Thornberry blew it for me yesterday when she put up a half baked reason for Starmer firing Olly. Even she looked embarrassed. Lammy's out as is Cooper (Gaza related) McFadden was pathetic this morning........It's beginning to look easier to walk through the eye of a needle.....
I do not think I have ever seen a government minister so lost for words than McFadden in his interview with Sophy Ridge on Sky this morning
He was lost for words and frankly I felt sorry for him, and that Starmer could even put a colleague in this position
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
A 0-0 draw. Badenoch had six open goals with Starmer tied up in knots on the goal line and she missed all six.
Why did Starmer sack Robbins? Times six.
Re: Maurice Oldfield.
Sacking Robbins for doing his job is the killer blow.
In the Yes Minister novelisation, there's an "editorial" introduction to one of the chapters describing how a decision can be wrong by every rational measure (scientifically, economically, legally) but still be correct politically.
Starmer's problem for some time has been the converse of that- that even if what he's saying and doing is rationally correct, it's not politically correct. To an extent, it's the difference between law and politics- though the distinction between science and politics is starker.
And beyond a certain point, that's all matters. Boris survived his many pratfalls right up to the moment he didn't.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
No. Anyone with a functional brain would have thought she had a shocker. It wasn't that Starmer was effective. It is just she wasn't.
She didn’t have a shocker at all. Hard to see what else she could have done - I thought her line of questioning was good. They both threw quotes at each other and he managed to muddle through. There was no slam dunk because as I note above, this is damaging but there is no smoking gun that will force him out immediately.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
No. Anyone with a functional brain would have thought she had a shocker. It wasn't that Starmer was effective. It is just she wasn't.
She didn’t have a shocker at all. Hard to see what else she could have done - I thought her line of questioning was good. They both threw quotes at each other and he managed to muddle through. There was no slam dunk because as I note above, this is damaging but there is no smoking gun that will force him out immediately.
I don't think there is going to be a smoking gun.
But he's mortally wounded - and is only there because the MPs don't have a single candidate yet to go up against him. That's it.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Why should nothing get done? Parliament will still pass laws. Starmer still has a large majority. Government will still act.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Forget Starmer for a moment. Actually, the government has done, and is doing, lots of things broadly in line with their manifesto. Some have already had an impact, but most will not come to fruition until towards the end of this parliament, in some cases later. To give one of many examples, renters' rights will improve significantly next week.
I acknowledge, however, that the government is incredibly poor at communicating both its achievements and its plans.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Why should nothing get done? Parliament will still pass laws. Starmer still has a large majority. Government will still act.
But in aid of what? What exactly is the government doing?
It's all got completely lost - I don't have a clue what they are even trying to do at this point.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4m Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
We now get into the legal and non-legal definitions of what "applying pressure" can mean....I bit like pass / failing vetting....
'just fucking approve it' sounds like pressure to a non-lawyer like me.
“Just fucking approve it, or else,” is the application of pressure. “Just fucking approve it,” is a strong statement of desire for something, but not pressure…???
It's bullying, and nobody should condone it. He'd have been entitled to tell him to get on with his own fucking job and leave him to do his. Would probably have been sacked, but that happened anyway, despite kowtowing.
If Play Your Cards Right was still going and Brucie said We asked 100 people what the first word that came into their head when thinking about Starmer I think I know what the top two answers would be.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Forget Starmer for a moment. Actually, the government has done, and is doing, lots of things broadly in line with their manifesto. Some have already had an impact, but most will not come to fruition until towards the end of this parliament, in some cases later. To give one of many examples, renters' rights will improve significantly next week.
I acknowledge, however, that the government is incredibly poor at communicating both its achievements and its plans.
Burnham would be wise I think, to not immediately dump a lot of the "quiet" stuff you allude to. However, my big fear with him is he'll dump it all out of spite.
Like immigration reform. It's self-evident that Mahmood has basically got this right. And with a better communicator at the top they'd win the argument. But I feel like Burnham will ditch it all because he can.
Burnham's instinct is to go to the left too much - that would be a mistake in my view.
Comments
But if the police decide that such an image is of an illegal nature, you could end up in court.
And you will then fail background checks, even if found innocent. Possibly for life.
Enjoy.
ETA I did think that I was replying to MexPedro
They have acted in such ways in the past.
And that is before malevolence on their part comes into it. See Forest Gate…
I would advise extreme caution.
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2046898033149759938
Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the cabinet office, is appearing before the foreign affairs select committee tomorrow
She has been at the heart of the Whitehall clash between the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office
She obtained the vetting report on Lord Mandelson on March 25 and three weeks later, after taking extensive legal advice, informed the prime minister
She is said to have been frustrated in getting information for the Humble Address on Mandelson out of the Foreign Office
Expect her to offer a counterpoint to the evidence provided by Robbins on Tuesday
She will also be fascinating on the next tranche of the Mandelson files
Not certain that's particularly insightful, but, sure, it's true.
Shish kebab for lunch
Genuinely the best I have *ever* seen her at the dispatch box. She's tearing Starmer apart.
Well, the glib answer is that he would fit in very well over there.
Hope his side can still sleep at nights.
Starmer took a calculated risk (McSweeney doing the job) to appoint a dodgy man who they thought would get along with Trump.
The risk failed and for that Starmer should have accepted he got it wrong (which to be fair he did) and resigned. But people are in my view reading into it a lot more than that.
He read the report mentioning Mandelson being a director of Sistema but nobody told him about the red flags? It's incredible, to use Starmer's own words.
Guido can reveal that Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little is due to leave her role.
https://order-order.com/2026/04/22/exc-cabinet-office-permanent-secretary-in-discussions-to-leave-government-role/
caveat emptor
Starmer made a very bad call in hindsight and as I’ve said should have immediately resigned for that alone. But it was a calculated risk to deal with Trump, that much is obvious.
No one else in the country thinks so.
I think I begin to understand why she is unemployable.
I doubt she would have this problem if her chosen subject was say maths.
Starmer's situation is a classic example of someone who rarely makes an error not understanding what to do when they do make one, especially a bad one. He's thrashing about, making boo-boo after boo-boo in his attempt to extricate himself from the situation.
Johnson knew what to do in such a situation; just lie 'innocently' and ignore the problem; Starmer doesn't, and is therefore making increasing desperate attempts to return to the status quo ante.
Sadly for him, and perhaps all of us, his only choice now is to hold his hands up, admit he's made an almighty mess, and throw himself upon the mercy of the House, the Press and the Party. The Party and the House might forgive him if he did that; the Tory press of course won't.
I still think Thornberry might b a decent fort-holder while the situation calms down.
Why did he quit when he could have been refusing to vet Mandy?
Keir Starmer confirms that he attempted to secure his former director of communications Matthew Doyle an ambassadorship
Sir Olly Robbins said he was asked by Number 10 to look into options without telling David Lammy, the then foreign secretary. He said he found it 'uncomfortable' because Doyle did not have the credentials to become an ambassador
Starmer subsequently elevated Doyle to the Lords. He has had the whip suspended after it emerged that he had supported a sex offender post charge
Starmer: 'Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as PM and other ministers. When people leave roles there are often conversations about other roles, but nothing came of this'
I still think a coronation is extremely likely.
It makes you wonder what happened in previous jobs - was he fucking up non-stop and devolving blame?
MPs are clearly waiting for Burnham to get into Parliament. I do not foresee any move until that occurs. I stand by my view that Burnham will be in Parliament by the end of this year.
I have heard it suggested that it was driven by Morgan McSweeney, which would be worrying if true. That would further undermine Starmer's reputation for making sensible appointments.
But we just don't know.
Why did Starmer sack Robbins? Times six.
Re: Maurice Oldfield.
Sacking Robbins for doing his job is the killer blow.
Dan Hodges has truly awful sources inside the party. I don’t know who he is speaking to.
Starmer will remain for sometime yet. Sadly.
"Methinks he doth protest too much"
It was silly partisanship that started it, of that I am of no doubt.
@DPJHodges
·
4m
Keir Starmer literally lied again. He claimed Robbins said no pressure was applied. That was the direct opposite of what Robins said.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046914235481882894
I do think though that it would much better for the Party and, more importantly, the country, if he threw himself on the mercy of the house.
People in general tend to be generous to people, even very senior people, who admit to an error.
I’m honestly incredibly depressed about it. I really didn’t think it would end up like this, I thought he’d be boring but basically honest and competent. And he’s turned out to be none of those things.
He must never lead Labour into another general election on principle alone. Consider me hitched to the Burnham train reluctantly.
Digging slightly into Trump's participation in the "USA 250" Bible reading event, sponsored by the Museum of the Bible (itself funded by the Green family of Hobby Lobby), the segment someone gave him is interesting - a core text of Christian Nationalism, which tries to find reasons to impose a version of the Old Testament societal laws in 2026. Ask a Jewish person what they think of that.
The coverage has mainly been of this sentence, which sounds quite fluffy in isolation:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14).
The whole piece he was given was 2 Chronicles 7:11-22.
I won't put it all here, but it is God appearing to Solomon, and includes a call to Solomon to build the temple (aka metaphorical ballroom?), promises blessings if the nation does "all I command, and observe my decrees and laws". On the other hand, destruction is promised for failure to do so.
It's a very nice fit for the USA's Manifest Destiny dream/self-image, and has an appeal within the system of dogma invented around the idea of Rapture and Imminent Return plus Restoration of Israel. That is despite the whole idea being essentially ruled out (even in a normal evangelical worldview) in the New Testament, which is about the creation of a "new covenant", rather than reimposing an old one.
One can also understand why it is all a bit incomprehensible to a purely secular mindset.
Unfortunately, everything he's done since then has been a disaster. It's plainly obvious resigning then was the right call as I said at the time.
If he hadn't U-turned on benefit reform he could have dug in on policy terms. But he didn't. The only thing - ONLY thing! - he has got is Iran. That's it.
The hole Starmer has dug himself into is that he has nothing else to anchor himself to. No big strategy, no grand plan to see through. Blair weathered all kinds of mess and would have walked through this because people basically could see what he was trying to do. To be fair I think Johnson despite all my hatred for him, got by on at least pretending to have a plan for quite a while too. Same with Cameron and Osborne.
I am afraid I can only conclude what many have said that I didn't believe at the time but I now concede I was completely wrong: Starmer is completely empty. He is totally incapable of planning or doing politics of any kind. When you understand this, it all makes sense. There is absolutely nothing there.
Therefore on the basis that Burnham has at least one idea from what I can tell, he's better by default.
I don't regret for voting for Starmer. But I do regret that he's still there.
It’s only a matter of time now but we just don’t quite know when that will be. I think those who have said that he stays in post largely because there isn’t an immediately obvious successor are correct on that front.
Exclusive form @ProducerOllie
This is likely to be the last PMQs of the parliamentary session
The prime minister is planning to send MPs away next Tuesday, more than a week before the public goes to the polls for the elections on May 7. It won't be back until May 13
Backbenchers have been told to expect the prorogation of parliament to happen next Tuesday evening. Number 10 is said to want to avoid further questions about the appointment of Mandelson before the elections
Not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_McFadden
An important distinction
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Starmer's problem for some time has been the converse of that- that even if what he's saying and doing is rationally correct, it's not politically correct. To an extent, it's the difference between law and politics- though the distinction between science and politics is starker.
And beyond a certain point, that's all matters. Boris survived his many pratfalls right up to the moment he didn't.
Starmer is badly, badly, damaged
But he's mortally wounded - and is only there because the MPs don't have a single candidate yet to go up against him. That's it.
I acknowledge, however, that the government is incredibly poor at communicating both its achievements and its plans.
It's all got completely lost - I don't have a clue what they are even trying to do at this point.
We asked 100 people what the first word that came into their head when thinking about Starmer
I think I know what the top two answers would be.
The Country has made up its mind.
Like immigration reform. It's self-evident that Mahmood has basically got this right. And with a better communicator at the top they'd win the argument. But I feel like Burnham will ditch it all because he can.
Burnham's instinct is to go to the left too much - that would be a mistake in my view.