Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
It's notable that even Vanilla is blocking what it sees as AI slop.
Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
Thanks to AI, they can enshittify themselves much faster than they used to.
Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?
It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.
If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.
I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."
Yes but does that apply when we're 5 party GB wide politics? I genuinely do not know. We might be in 6 party GB wide politics after Thursday depending on how well Restore do.
I still prefer still prefer Ipsos satisfaction ratings over VI at this stage in the cycle however there's a disconnect developing there too which I can only explain due to the Tory brand being tainted/seen as a wasted vote.
All the previous assumptions held true when we were in 2 to 3.5 party politics.
I suspect that a key difference at the moment is that Labour are still the leading party on the left-of-centre, whereas the Conservatives aren't leading on the right-of-centre. If either of those changes, then a lot of bricks might shuffle quite rapidly into a different pattern.
It's certainly possible- though a Restore effect, or Farage getting bored, seems more likely than anything the current Conservative leadership achieve. And Polanski is just as capable of self-combusting as Farage.
Polanski seems to have suffered quite a lot of damage as a result of the extra scrutiny he received before the local elections, and with his response to the Golders Green stabbings.
What's really interesting is that the main beneficiaries - when looking at the wiki opinion poll graph - appear to have been Reform, and not Labour.
The combined vote share for Labour and Tories in the opinion polls right now is 38%. The combined vote share for Reform and Greens is 41%.
There are lots of divides in British politics, but there are enough votes to vote out both of the main parties of the 20th century.
I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.
She has an ability to connect with voters. She has charisma. These things matter hugely to the electorate, more than policy.
Republicans paint her as a raving Commie. Her actual policies would be seen as moderate in the UK. Republicans will paint any Democrat as a raving Commie, so you might as well go for someone who can cut through that.
But I think she's too young for 2028. She feels more like a VP pick.
London mansions are being advertised to benefit claimants to rent for as little as £750 per month, highlighting the widening gulf with private renters in the capital
I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.
She has an ability to connect with voters. She has charisma. These things matter hugely to the electorate, more than policy.
Republicans paint her as a raving Commie. Her actual policies would be seen as moderate in the UK. Republicans will paint any Democrat as a raving Commie, so you might as well go for someone who can cut through that.
But I think she's too young for 2028. She feels more like a VP pick.
Democrats have to think about nothing else but how do we swing indie normie voters who choose Trump last time.
Particularly in some key states.
They must remorseless focus on that.
Standard regular Dem voters are going to walk over broken glass to vote Dem in 2028 after Trump - so they are in the bag imho.
London mansions are being advertised to benefit claimants to rent for as little as £750 per month, highlighting the widening gulf with private renters in the capital
Seen this. You’re really a mug if you work full time in this country and pay yours, and others, way.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Bad enough that the Trump administration actively considered suspending habeas corpus. Worst that the NYT journalist sat on the story for a year and a half while she wrote a book about Trump.
Excerpt from REGIME CHANGE, by @jonathanvswan and me: Inside the internal alarm at Trump and his powerful adviser, Stephen Miller, looking to upend basic due process rights just months into the administration. https://x.com/maggieNYT/status/2066470215257309246
Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
I find Facebook virtually unusable.
I see the odd thing from friends or groups I follow but I reckon two thirds are either ads, usually for crap like whiskey casks or solar, or suggested groups to join or local newspapers from other parts of the country with stories I have little interest in.
It used to be great. Especially for what’s on locally. Food festivals, restaurants opening, events, concerts.
By 'socialism' many American might mean European style social democracy.
By 'rightwards' many Americans might mean away from wokery.
Put them together and it suggests the sweet spot for the Dems is economically left and socially right of where they are.
I'd say this is also the sweet spot for electorates in Europe.
What the Dems need to talk about is jobs, housing, health costs, student debt, inequality and opportunity.
What they need to shut up about is trans, abortion and illegal immigrants.
The Dems do this more than some notice, but the GOP constantly push the position that they aren't.
Also, abortion is an issue which motivates many voters and where most of the US public agrees more with the Democratic position than with the Republican one. The GOP is more popular on immigration, although immigration plays well for the Dems with some audiences.
WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:
Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.
Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.
Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).
Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.
As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.
I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:
1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately 2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced 3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem. 4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.
And separately, but linked: 5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so. 6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?
3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.
4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.
The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.
As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.
There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.
What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.
As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.
There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.
And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.
To be absolutely clear, because you apparently missed this the first time - I give zero shits about the legal minutia and I’m not claiming the judge got it wrong. Continuing to pretend otherwise is convenient for anyone struggling to defend this though.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:
Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.
Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.
Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).
Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.
As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.
I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:
1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately 2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced 3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem. 4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.
And separately, but linked: 5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so. 6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?
3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.
4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.
The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.
As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.
There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.
What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.
As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.
There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.
And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.
To be absolutely clear, because you apparently missed this the first time - I give zero shits about the legal minutia and I’m not claiming the judge got it wrong. Continuing to pretend otherwise is convenient for anyone struggling to defend this though.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
It's notable that even Vanilla is blocking what it sees as AI slop.
A successful AI needs to dumb down, with spelling mistakes, bad grammar, and less articulateness to be seen as a human and thereby avoid blocking. How ironic.
Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
I find Facebook virtually unusable.
I see the odd thing from friends or groups I follow but I reckon two thirds are either ads, usually for crap like whiskey casks or solar, or suggested groups to join or local newspapers from other parts of the country with stories I have little interest in.
It used to be great. Especially for what’s on locally. Food festivals, restaurants opening, events, concerts.
Now it’s a nightmare I rarely visit.
Ad block. Refuse to use the app and only use the web interface.
Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.
They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.
The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.
I find Facebook virtually unusable.
I see the odd thing from friends or groups I follow but I reckon two thirds are either ads, usually for crap like whiskey casks or solar, or suggested groups to join or local newspapers from other parts of the country with stories I have little interest in.
It used to be great. Especially for what’s on locally. Food festivals, restaurants opening, events, concerts.
Now it’s a nightmare I rarely visit.
I keep Facebook for one reason only - to get up-to-date information about whether restaurants, museums etc are open. I don't follow anyone.
I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.
She has an ability to connect with voters. She has charisma. These things matter hugely to the electorate, more than policy.
Republicans paint her as a raving Commie. Her actual policies would be seen as moderate in the UK. Republicans will paint any Democrat as a raving Commie, so you might as well go for someone who can cut through that.
But I think she's too young for 2028. She feels more like a VP pick.
Democrats have to think about nothing else but how do we swing indie normie voters who choose Trump last time.
Particularly in some key states.
They must remorseless focus on that.
Standard regular Dem voters are going to walk over broken glass to vote Dem in 2028 after Trump - so they are in the bag imho.
Is AOC that person?
Is she normie friendly?
Is she young Latino men friendly? They swung it for Trump in 2024 and they're swinging back.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:
Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.
Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.
Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).
Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.
As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.
I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:
1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately 2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced 3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem. 4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.
And separately, but linked: 5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so. 6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?
3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.
4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.
The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.
As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.
There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.
What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.
As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.
There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.
And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.
To be absolutely clear, because you apparently missed this the first time - I give zero shits about the legal minutia and I’m not claiming the judge got it wrong. Continuing to pretend otherwise is convenient for anyone struggling to defend this though.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:
Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.
Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.
Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).
Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.
As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.
I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:
1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately 2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced 3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem. 4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.
And separately, but linked: 5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so. 6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?
3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.
4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.
The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.
As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.
There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.
What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.
As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.
There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.
And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.
To be absolutely clear, because you apparently missed this the first time - I give zero shits about the legal minutia and I’m not claiming the judge got it wrong. Continuing to pretend otherwise is convenient for anyone struggling to defend this though.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
I suspect Eton got a massive VAT rebate last year. And going forward as a Veblen good / service I doubt the £63,000 cost matters to parents of the boys attending..
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:
Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.
Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.
Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).
Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.
As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.
I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:
1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately 2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced 3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem. 4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.
And separately, but linked: 5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so. 6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?
3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.
4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.
The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.
As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.
There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.
What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.
As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.
There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.
And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.
To be absolutely clear, because you apparently missed this the first time - I give zero shits about the legal minutia and I’m not claiming the judge got it wrong. Continuing to pretend otherwise is convenient for anyone struggling to defend this though.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
Rich Liberal leftie terrorist lover up in arms
Sorry Malcolm, always enjoy a vicious “debate” with you but I can’t really tolerate that.
I suspect Eton got a massive VAT rebate last year. And going forward as a Veblen good / service I doubt the £63,000 cost matters to parents of the boys attending..
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
Given Eton's endowments and clientele, they were never going to struggle with VAT. Or business rates. Or anything else.
If every private school were like Eton, then we should as a nation be charging a VAT rate of 40% plus taxes of double standard business rates for them. We'd be quids in.
Unfortunately, only about 30-40 private schools out of around 2,000 are like Eton.
I suspect Eton got a massive VAT rebate last year. And going forward as a Veblen good / service I doubt the £63,000 cost matters to parents of the boys attending..
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
Just the done thing these days isn't it for Royal boys ?
I expect Gordonstoun isn't as it was quite back in Charles' days but that particular era (Of boys going there) has passed now for the main Royal line.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Speaking of primaries, we got and received a late offer to our 1st choice. It was always quite close and I think she would have thrived at either but the KS2 outcomes tipped the balance for us tbh. (Oh and most of her friends including 2 of 3 of her best friends are going to this one which she is happy about)
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I suspect Eton got a massive VAT rebate last year. And going forward as a Veblen good / service I doubt the £63,000 cost matters to parents of the boys attending..
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
Just the done thing these days isn't it for Royal boys ?
I expect Gordonstoun isn't as it was quite back in Charles' days but that particular era (Of boys going there) has passed now for the main Royal line.
Gordonstoun mainly big Phil’s thing wasn’t it? Fair to say mixed results on available evidence.
I don't see why he can't go to Westminster City School like everyone else. If it's not good enough for him, then it's not good enough for the rest of us.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
Lack of visible hinterland (Healey’s phrase I think) and very little sense of humour big factors I think.
I don't see why he can't go to Westminster City School like everyone else. If it's not good enough for him, then it's not good enough for the rest of us.
Slight problem, William and Catherine live in Windsor not Kensington Palace.
I don't see why he can't go to Westminster City School like everyone else. If it's not good enough for him, then it's not good enough for the rest of us.
You mean Westminster school surely? His parents aren't members of the Labour or Green party so no hypocrisy sending their children private
Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?
It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.
If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.
I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."
Yes but does that apply when we're 5 party GB wide politics? I genuinely do not know. We might be in 6 party GB wide politics after Thursday depending on how well Restore do.
I still prefer still prefer Ipsos satisfaction ratings over VI at this stage in the cycle however there's a disconnect developing there too which I can only explain due to the Tory brand being tainted/seen as a wasted vote.
All the previous assumptions held true when we were in 2 to 3.5 party politics.
I suspect that a key difference at the moment is that Labour are still the leading party on the left-of-centre, whereas the Conservatives aren't leading on the right-of-centre. If either of those changes, then a lot of bricks might shuffle quite rapidly into a different pattern.
It's certainly possible- though a Restore effect, or Farage getting bored, seems more likely than anything the current Conservative leadership achieve. And Polanski is just as capable of self-combusting as Farage.
The relation of figures now and figures at the GE, and the relation of votes to seats at the GE are a huge unknowable for all the usual reasons + for one more. We have no idea yet how, once the general voting public are taken up with the question, tactical voting will play out, including whether it will, any more than usual, and how it will. By late 2027/early 2028 this will become a central issue.
My guess at the moment is that the real contest in the GE will be Reform v Not Reform, and all the associated tactical voting in play, which would mean Reform struggle. If the real contest is, Right of Centre v Left of Centre, Reform could easily come top.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Burnham as PM might now help Kemi as he would shift Labour left
I suspect Eton got a massive VAT rebate last year. And going forward as a Veblen good / service I doubt the £63,000 cost matters to parents of the boys attending..
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
Just the done thing these days isn't it for Royal boys ?
I expect Gordonstoun isn't as it was quite back in Charles' days but that particular era (Of boys going there) has passed now for the main Royal line.
Gordonstoun mainly big Phil’s thing wasn’t it? Fair to say mixed results on available evidence.
Just look the ready-for-work outcomes Gordonstoun managed for Charles. It was freaking decades until he was able to get the job he wanted.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
Starmer only became Prime Minister because the Truss incident meant that there was a catastrophic loss of confidence in the Tories. He must have been the least popular leader of the opposition to win election by some distance. He then received a landslide, on barely a third of the vote, and acted as though he had won a great personal mandate.
Had Sunak won the leadership contest against Truss in 2022 I think the Tories would have won re-election, notwithstanding that 2024 was an awful year for incumbent governments facing elections.
Imagine if the pound had been forced out of the ERM a year earlier, and the Tories faced the 1992GE with their economic reputation destroyed. Kinnock might well have become PM, but I don't imagine the voters would have been all that happy about it.
I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.
Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.
She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.
She has plenty of time to become a great President.
Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.
Buttigeg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020
Which is more damaging to a US presidential candidate - to be a woman or to be gay? Serious question.
And which is more damaging - geography or sexuality? Does image trump geography?
Newsom is type cast to be GePresident. Trump recognises that. He even once accidentally called Newsom President!
Geography, certainly for a Democratic. The last three Democrat Presidents were all from the South or Midwest. Hillary won the popular vote as a woman and only evangelicals would probably not vote for a gay President and they almost all vote Republican anyway
Biden was from Delaware (albeit born in Pennsylvania). I wouldn't say that really fitted your category of 'south' even if it was one of the last states to abolish slavery.
Scranton Pennsylvania where Biden was born and raised is closer to the rustbelt than coastal elite states culturally
Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?
It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.
If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.
I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
Remember when we were all worried nanobots were going to turn the world into grey goo?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
He's got anti-charisma. It's quite fascinating. Just as some people can get away with quite awful behaviour through simple charm and panache, SKS can do something on the face of it unobjectionable - like, as someone who has always genuinely liked football, appear in an England shirt - and still find his behaviour grates even on those who might otherwise be quite well-disposed to that sort of thing. I personally think he's a terrible prime minister objectively - but even those who might be politically well-disposed to whatever Starmerism is find it very hard not to dislike him. It's just the way he is.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
Partly, as I've mentioned before, he gets the blame for what St Jeremy and St Boris did to themselves whilst Nasty Old Starmer was watching. Partly, he can't fake sincerity, because he's not actually a politician. Partly, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time- it's a blooming difficult moment to be in charge of a country, especially this one.
And partly, we live in a fairly hate-y time. To reach out a tiny bit, I don't think that Kemi Badenoch is up to the job of party leadership, and I hope she doesn't become PM. But some of the contempt for her also goes beyond the necessary. A decade ago, Channel 4 did one of those super-topical comedy shows claiming to go behind the scenes of The Event. The Jack Dee character, a very jaded Conservative spin doctor, had a line that has stuck with me...
Politicians have discovered they can win a campaign just on hatred. It changes things. Britain is about to live through a 50-year edition of the Jeremy Kyle Show.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Burnham as PM might now help Kemi as he would shift Labour left
Shifting left would also help Labour against the Greens and also possibly attract some Reform. A win win for the two main parties.
Why can’t they send him to a slightly less elitist school. Like I know people say they’re just like us but they aren’t really.
QEII didn't go to school at all. She was taught at home by a governess.
Sending the heir to Eton is great progress for the Royals, and I'm all in favour of children going to the local school.
Nor did King George V (tutored by Hugh Dalton's father, who by all accounts was an even bigger twat than Hugh) and Edward VIII and George VI only went to Royal Osborne quite late on.
@Richard_Tyndall a couple of days back you mentioned your book on British intervention in southern Russia at the end of WWI. This sounds like a book I want to read! Can you tell us more?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
Loathing is obvs ridiculous, but there are issues, apart from the obvious plus of being an Arsenal supporter. After two years the style is set, and I think the attentive public are genuinely astonished at the black hole at the centre.
Inheriting a situation where, in the public mood, the only way was up, and the manifesto allowed a free rein to develop should have been an opportunity. There was no expectation of instant solutions but those who listened thought they knew he had won an election by keeping the real talent under wraps.
So that by now on all the big competence and policy issues even the mildly aware should have a sense of where we are going and how we are going to get there. I pay attention and I have no idea. Nor does John Healey. Instead of which we get terrible communications, delays for consultation about issues Labour should have been sorting in opposition for the last 14 years (social care by 2024 anyone?) and a series of half baked stunts in place of a direction of travel. This accompanied by unwillingness to confront MP placeholders and a set of policies designed to price the young out of jobs has been an epic fail.
But it is worse still. I have voted Tory all my life until 2024. I would vote Labour tomorrow in a GE because they are the least worst option.
Footnote: My MP lost the Labour whip for voting against the government on farmers IHT. The government then changed the policy to the one my MP favoured. This sums up the state of play. My MP deserves my loyalty more than the government.
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
He's got anti-charisma. It's quite fascinating. Just as some people can get away with quite awful behaviour through simple charm and panache, SKS can do something on the face of it unobjectionable - like, as someone who has always genuinely liked football, appear in an England shirt - and still find his behaviour grates even on those who might otherwise be quite well-disposed to that sort of thing. I personally think he's a terrible prime minister objectively - but even those who might be politically well-disposed to whatever Starmerism is find it very hard not to dislike him. It's just the way he is.
1) Announce a policy which fundamentally unpopular with both your party and many others. 2) Defend the policy with a dogged insistence 3) Force your few allies to expend political capital defending it. 4) At the last moment, do a compromised u-turn that continues the worst aspects of the policy, plus makes it a mess.
So now you’ve upset the supporters of the policy, the opponents of the policy and those who went along because they were your allies.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
He's got anti-charisma. It's quite fascinating. Just as some people can get away with quite awful behaviour through simple charm and panache, SKS can do something on the face of it unobjectionable - like, as someone who has always genuinely liked football, appear in an England shirt - and still find his behaviour grates even on those who might otherwise be quite well-disposed to that sort of thing. I personally think he's a terrible prime minister objectively - but even those who might be politically well-disposed to whatever Starmerism is find it very hard not to dislike him. It's just the way he is.
1) Announce a policy which fundamentally unpopular with both your party and many others. 2) Defend the policy with a dogged insistence 3) Force your few allies to expend political capital defending it. 4) At the last moment, do a compromised u-turn that continues the worst aspects of the policy, plus makes it a mess.
So now you’ve upset the supporters of the policy, the opponents of the policy and those who went along because they were your allies.
Do that a few times….
The systematic planned character assassination by UK Media, 90% right of centre, pre planned, ore ordained has worked perfectly.
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
The interesting thing is that Starmer’s statement is less a declaration of strength than an admission that people are already discussing life after him. Nobody asks a Prime Minister who’s cruising towards a second landslide whether he’s planning to quit.
As for Peston presenting it as a direct message to Burnham, that’s classic Westminster theatre.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Burnham as PM might now help Kemi as he would shift Labour left
Shifting left would also help Labour against the Greens and also possibly attract some Reform. A win win for the two main parties.
Nothing will help Kemi whilst she right of centre overshadowed by Farage and Lowe, surrounded by failed pshycophants and incapable of accepting criticism, telling the truth and arguing with everyone.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
He's got anti-charisma. It's quite fascinating. Just as some people can get away with quite awful behaviour through simple charm and panache, SKS can do something on the face of it unobjectionable - like, as someone who has always genuinely liked football, appear in an England shirt - and still find his behaviour grates even on those who might otherwise be quite well-disposed to that sort of thing. I personally think he's a terrible prime minister objectively - but even those who might be politically well-disposed to whatever Starmerism is find it very hard not to dislike him. It's just the way he is.
1) Announce a policy which fundamentally unpopular with both your party and many others. 2) Defend the policy with a dogged insistence 3) Force your few allies to expend political capital defending it. 4) At the last moment, do a compromised u-turn that continues the worst aspects of the policy, plus makes it a mess.
So now you’ve upset the supporters of the policy, the opponents of the policy and those who went along because they were your allies.
Do that a few times….
The systematic planned character assassination by UK Media, 90% right of centre, pre planned, ore ordained has worked perfectly.
No more No less
Malmesbury’s point is really about political competence rather than ideology. If you repeatedly:
- Announce controversial policies. - Defend them aggressively. - Force colleagues to defend them. - Retreat anyway.
…then you end up annoying almost everyone involved.
The media can amplify that. They can’t manufacture the underlying sequence of events.
The truth is probably that both things are happening. A hostile press environment magnifies every mistake, while a cautious and sometimes indecisive political style creates mistakes that are easy to magnify.
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
IANAE but I blame Covid and its mysterious neurological effects. See also post-Covid rises in shoplifting, air rage incidents and (on this thread) loathing of Prime Ministers. Or it could be social media.
All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.
This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.
Implausible. How many use the trains daily?
About 4.7 million people every day. (1.73 billion train journeys a year divided by 365 days)
That's the upper bound, assuming they take a single point to point journey per day. Most will return so you're probably looking at around 2.7-ish million as a more realistic figure.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Burnham as PM might now help Kemi as he would shift Labour left
Shifting left would also help Labour against the Greens and also possibly attract some Reform. A win win for the two main parties.
Nothing will help Kemi whilst she right of centre overshadowed by Farage and Lowe, surrounded by failed pshycophants and incapable of accepting criticism, telling the truth and arguing with everyone.
It’s Burnham’s ratings with the 2024 Labour coalition that matter as that is the route back to 30%
The latest IPSOS poll shows that among 2024 Labour voters, 48% have a favourable opinion of Burnham (15% unfavourable); 42% are favourable towards Starmer (34% unfavourable), and 25% are favourable towards Streeting (35% unfavourable).
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected. 2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Burnham as PM might now help Kemi as he would shift Labour left
Shifting left would also help Labour against the Greens and also possibly attract some Reform. A win win for the two main parties.
Nothing will help Kemi whilst she right of centre overshadowed by Farage and Lowe, surrounded by failed pshycophants and incapable of accepting criticism, telling the truth and arguing with everyone.
All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.
This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.
Implausible. How many use the trains daily?
About 4.7 million people every day. (1.73 billion train journeys a year divided by 365 days)
I'll use my daily image to show the geographic split (Image for 2021-22 but I expect it hasn't changed much)
Er...not changed much from the Covid/post covid era?
That was the Covid Era (well the year after).
It's also (intentionally) before the launch of the Elizabeth line which is 200m journeys a year.
Chatgpt reckons (For 2025) Birmingham - London has far more trains now than London-Peterborough compared to that 2020-21 map, although asking it to emphasise the Elizabeth line had it in Purple going all the way to Birmingham....
Asked ChatGPT to tidy it up, it now has Abbey Wood at Dover !
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
I think what I loathe about Starmer isn’t anything he’s actually done. It’s that he’s such a personality vacuum.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
Starmer is in the wrong sector of government. He would have been more successful as Sir Humphrey than as Jim Hacker.
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
Such is the cynicism and impatience of the modern age, I wonder if we'll ever get a politician who's popular for any length of time again. I actually fear for Nigel because his supporters are probably the most unforgiving of the lot. Rupert will be in the ascendency within weeks of Nigel taking office.
I have never understood, and have never had it satisfactorily explained to me, why Keir Starmer generates such hatred. Sure he's made a few mistakes, and he doesn't come across as particularly likeable, but the hatred I just don't understand. Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
It's one of the two big mysteries of British politics right now. People don't usually hate someone for being boring and ineffective. You just think they're boring and ineffective. And if you do hate someone you are very clear why you hate them - "I will never forgive them for what they did with X". But there's no X with Starmer. None of the people replying to your post have come up with a convincing X.
It probably says more about the public mood, in a bad way, than it does about Starmer, that they hate him so.
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
Comments
What's really interesting is that the main beneficiaries - when looking at the wiki opinion poll graph - appear to have been Reform, and not Labour.
The combined vote share for Labour and Tories in the opinion polls right now is 38%. The combined vote share for Reform and Greens is 41%.
There are lots of divides in British politics, but there are enough votes to vote out both of the main parties of the 20th century.
Republicans paint her as a raving Commie. Her actual policies would be seen as moderate in the UK. Republicans will paint any Democrat as a raving Commie, so you might as well go for someone who can cut through that.
But I think she's too young for 2028. She feels more like a VP pick.
London mansions are being advertised to benefit claimants to rent for as little as £750 per month, highlighting the widening gulf with private renters in the capital
Fanciful nonsense. We are but a bee sting on the entire area.
Particularly in some key states.
They must remorseless focus on that.
Standard regular Dem voters are going to walk over broken glass to vote Dem in 2028 after Trump - so they are in the bag imho.
Is AOC that person?
Is she normie friendly?
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
5m
There appears nothing more to Burnham's "popularity" than a souffle effect. As soon as the oven was opened to see if there was anything inside, it collapsed.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2066833951033786415
Now that Burnham and Streeting are potential replacements for Starmer, the anti Labour vote has transferred to them. They are proxies.
It would be interesting to see how the favourability ratings have changed by party support.
Worst that the NYT journalist sat on the story for a year and a half while she wrote a book about Trump.
Excerpt from REGIME CHANGE, by @jonathanvswan and me: Inside the internal alarm at Trump and his powerful adviser, Stephen Miller, looking to upend basic due process rights just months into the administration.
https://x.com/maggieNYT/status/2066470215257309246
I see the odd thing from friends or groups I follow but I reckon two thirds are either ads, usually for crap like whiskey casks or solar, or suggested groups to join or local newspapers from other parts of the country with stories I have little interest in.
It used to be great. Especially for what’s on locally. Food festivals, restaurants opening, events, concerts.
Now it’s a nightmare I rarely visit.
Also, abortion is an issue which motivates many voters and where most of the US public agrees more with the Democratic position than with the Republican one. The GOP is more popular on immigration, although immigration plays well for the Dems with some audiences.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
And in there you’ve made a disgusting misrepresentation of my position, however coyly phrased. I do not think they should have no consequences for their actions, and I’m glad they’ve been rightly convicted of criminal damage and GBH.
And you’ve cleverly disguised the fact the defence barrister made that speech at the first trial, where they were acquitted funnily enough.
How ironic.
They swung it for Trump in 2024 and they're swinging back.
And almost certainly all socialists now that there is much less of other people's money to waste.
The few times I've encountered Eton (usually as extra staff at a secondary school prom) they've been incredibly generous..
If every private school were like Eton, then we should as a nation be charging a VAT rate of 40% plus taxes of double standard business rates for them. We'd be quids in.
Unfortunately, only about 30-40 private schools out of around 2,000 are like Eton.
I expect Gordonstoun isn't as it was quite back in Charles' days but that particular era (Of boys going there) has passed now for the main Royal line.
The biggest movement against Burnham has been with 2024 Tory voters, as I suspected.
2024 Conservative voters: 15% favourable (-8), 55% unfavourable (+15) shows the movement between the two polls.
Wilson was unpopular...... and how ...... with Tories, but I don't recall him generating the same level of hatred.
Oh sorry, is that not what you meant?
of the Labour or Green party so no hypocrisy sending their children private
#tootoosoon?
At the moment I think she is, if not the only, certainly the most prominant woman listed as a possible Democratic candidate.
Not just Democrats but Independants too their is a big swing amongst woman against the macho side of MAGA and the idea of Trad Wives etc.
A swing in terms of the female vote towards a woman in the Whitehouse could certainly help her beat male collegues to get teh Democratic nomination.
Peter.
My guess at the moment is that the real contest in the GE will be Reform v Not Reform, and all the associated tactical voting in play, which would mean Reform struggle. If the real contest is, Right of Centre v Left of Centre, Reform could easily come top.
A range of other possibles are around.
Most politicians, good or bad, have something recognisable about them. Thatcher had conviction. Blair had charm. Brown had a big clunking fist. Johnson was a clown. Starmer feels like a placeholder.
After years in public life, the things we know about him are that he was DPP, supports Arsenal, and his father was a tool-maker. He’s become a cipher onto which everyone projects whatever they dislike about modern Britain: managerialism, technocracy, caution, the establishment. The visceral dislike isn’t really about Starmer himself. It’s about what people think he represents.
Though being an Arsenal supporter doesn’t help.
Had Sunak won the leadership contest against Truss in 2022 I think the Tories would have won re-election, notwithstanding that 2024 was an awful year for incumbent governments facing elections.
Imagine if the pound had been forced out of the ERM a year earlier, and the Tories faced the 1992GE with their economic reputation destroyed. Kinnock might well have become PM, but I don't imagine the voters would have been all that happy about it.
Sending the heir to Eton is great progress for the Royals, and I'm all in favour of children going to the local school.
Bob Worcester[1] said "watch the share, not the lead" - see here for an example.
[1] I spoke to him a couple of times! Before he died, obviously.
Starmer is grey goo personified.
I personally think he's a terrible prime minister objectively - but even those who might be politically well-disposed to whatever Starmerism is find it very hard not to dislike him. It's just the way he is.
And partly, we live in a fairly hate-y time. To reach out a tiny bit, I don't think that Kemi Badenoch is up to the job of party leadership, and I hope she doesn't become PM. But some of the contempt for her also goes beyond the necessary. A decade ago, Channel 4 did one of those super-topical comedy shows claiming to go behind the scenes of The Event. The Jack Dee character, a very jaded Conservative spin doctor, had a line that has stuck with me...
Politicians have discovered they can win a campaign just on hatred.
It changes things.
Britain is about to live through a 50-year edition of the Jeremy Kyle Show.
It's not wrong, is it? Only 40 years to go.
A win win for the two main parties.
Inheriting a situation where, in the public mood, the only way was up, and the manifesto allowed a free rein to develop should have been an opportunity. There was no expectation of instant solutions but those who listened thought they knew he had won an election by keeping the real talent under wraps.
So that by now on all the big competence and policy issues even the mildly aware should have a sense of where we are going and how we are going to get there. I pay attention and I have no idea. Nor does John Healey. Instead of which we get terrible communications, delays for consultation about issues Labour should have been sorting in opposition for the last 14 years (social care by 2024 anyone?) and a series of half baked stunts in place of a direction of travel. This accompanied by unwillingness to confront MP placeholders and a set of policies designed to price the young out of jobs has been an epic fail.
But it is worse still. I have voted Tory all my life until 2024. I would vote Labour tomorrow in a GE because they are the least worst option.
Footnote: My MP lost the Labour whip for voting against the government on farmers IHT. The government then changed the policy to the one my MP favoured. This sums up the state of play. My MP deserves my loyalty more than the government.
“ Trump slams Israel's methods in Lebanon:
You don't have to knock down an apartment house every time you are looking for somebody.
There are a lot of people in those houses, and they are not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.”
https://x.com/osint613/status/2066835906540048869?s=61
“ Keir Starmer has just sent a message - from the G7 - to Andy Burnham that he can surrender any hope that he will walk away from being prime minister in any kind of smooth or orderly transfer of power. These are his on-camera words
“So very many times on my political journey people have said to me ‘it's not possible.’ They said it's not possible to turn the Labour Party around, it’s not possible to win an election, it’s not possible if you do win an election to invest in your public services and stabilise the economy. Wrong every time. And that's why I intend not to walk away from this, but to carry on with what I was elected to do, which is to serve this country and bring back the change that people desperately need in their lives.”
https://x.com/peston/status/2066836761225867637?s=61
2) Defend the policy with a dogged insistence
3) Force your few allies to expend political capital defending it.
4) At the last moment, do a compromised u-turn that continues the worst aspects of the policy, plus makes it a mess.
So now you’ve upset the supporters of the policy, the opponents of the policy and those who went along because they were your allies.
Do that a few times….
Take him and his Cabal out, Bin Laden style
You know it makes sense.
No more
No less
It's also (intentionally) before the launch of the Elizabeth line which is 200m journeys a year.
As for Peston presenting it as a direct message to Burnham, that’s classic Westminster theatre.
- Announce controversial policies.
- Defend them aggressively.
- Force colleagues to defend them.
- Retreat anyway.
…then you end up annoying almost everyone involved.
The media can amplify that. They can’t manufacture the underlying sequence of events.
The truth is probably that both things are happening. A hostile press environment magnifies every mistake, while a cautious and sometimes indecisive political style creates mistakes that are easy to magnify.
If Burnham does get back into Parliament, Starmer will almost certainly be ousted by a frantic Labour Party who think Burnham will be better.
The question is, what will they do after twelve months of Burnham when they realise they are wrong?
National Highways figures reveal 947 incidents in 12 months – an average of 18 a week
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/15/drivers-travelling-wrong-side-motorway/ (£££)
IANAE but I blame Covid and its mysterious neurological effects. See also post-Covid rises in shoplifting, air rage incidents and (on this thread) loathing of Prime Ministers. Or it could be social media.
Asked ChatGPT to tidy it up, it now has Abbey Wood at Dover !
Liz TrussAnge in to bat?Presumably her current difficulties will be resolved by then.
I think Buttigieg is better but a woman and a gay man might be pushing it too far.
I'd make Buttigeg Secretary of state if they won.
Newsome is too big a character not to overshadow her in the campaign and I think they'd clash if he was VC.
So someone popular not polarising ,who would be a good supportive partner not a competitive VP in both the campaign and in office.
Peter.
It probably says more about the public mood, in a bad way, than it does about Starmer, that they hate him so.
Do they want the Fukkers to win?