When you’re paid-per-word and have nothing meaningful to say.

OC

So sayeth the human rights lawyer with the human rights abuser. So sayeth the ally of Ukraine with the ally of Russia who are in no small part creating those headwinds. Starmer embarrasses himself and the UK with his pathetically naïve jaunt to Beijing.

Starmerism is all about sitting in the middle of a four-way intersection and hoping the US, EU, PRC, and domestic political needs don’t crush him. Unluckily for Starmer, his tragic-dodging abilities don’t seem to be as good as he thinks.

All while approving its largest embassy in Europe from which to intimidate dissidents that have sought refuge in the UK and Europe. Starmer’s graduates from standing in the middle of the road to the middle of an intersection.

The irony of this is that it proves Burnham’s point for him.

Imagine being so corrupt and authoritarian even Sepp Blatter thinks you've gone too far. www.theguardian.com/football/202...

“You there, young graduate, pensioners demand more money!” Fuck. Right. Off.

Mine is far too on-brand 😅

One interesting theme from the book is the enduring centrality of continental Europe to English and British geopolitical thinking … right down to Union and establishing the second Empire as a whole.

This argument does not acknowledge that politics is nor static. Events have, are, and do change and politicians can and should change accordingly. Did anyone seriously think Starmer would’ve performed as badly as he did in 2024? No. So why pillory a politician for changing course as events have?

Anyway, happy Monday.

„Which is exactly why we engaged in factional games to keep Andy Burnham from running in a by-election he’d probably win“.

While there was no option that would have strengthened Starmer, he chose the worst option with the least convincing post-hoc justification. Starmer is, once again, demonstrating how incompetent of a political operator he is. The UK deserves better than that petty factionalist.

Good morning all. And here’s your regular reminder that the Praetorian Guard killed a lot of emperors.

One thing I’ve thought re: Burnham is that in a mature system of devolution, we should see it as normal for politicians to be able to move between tiers of government, and if we won’t allow double jobbing then that will necessarily involve by-elections.

Starmer simply cannot help himself. Being this petty and factional helps no-one, least of all himself. From „the adults are in charge“ to this.

So Starmer has chosen to go out as a petty, insecure factionalist. On his head be it.

The abject cowardice of the Democratic party’s leadership is both scandalous and shameful. Shame on them all.

that Farage and Badenoch want ICE-style action in the UK should be enough to end them

Bring. It. On.

A new leader will have an opportunity to do what Starmer has otherwise been unable to do and update Labour‘s EU policy to reflect the radically-changed geopolitical context. They shouldn’t pass the opportunity by.

No no, it’s the politicians doing politics that’s the problem, not his performance.

Ahh Heathrow T3. Still a glorious mess

The concern for the Chagossians is where, exactly? London dispossessed them of their islands in the '60s and is attempting to further entrench that dispossession without any regard for their wishes. Yet, silence from those who would otherwise be all over London disregarding a minority‘s rights.

And so it begins...

I wonder if Starmer payed any attention, or if his use of Mark Carney as an example is limited only to keeping his job …

While a new leader won’t fundamentally change the polling situation overnight, a new leader with a new approach and better grip on comms and strategy would make it easier to reach out to Lab->DK voters.

I cannot tell you how absolutely infuriatingly this stuff comes across to Europeans. When we say America is no longer a reliable ally, it goes considerably deeper than Donald Trump himself. This kind of complacent, condescending shit is a *huge* part of it.

U-turning on a u-turn that prepares the ground for another u-turn. One would think the Chancellor is better than this, alas …

The one aspect of the Chagos issue that should be front and centre is conspicuously absent. The Chagossians were dispossessed of their Islands and the agreement signed by Starmer solidifies their dispossession. It’s shameful that what should be the primary point has been thoroughly ignored.

At a time of increased geopolitical u certainty when the very foundations of European security are being questioned, it’s a monumental abdication of government’s responsibility. The days of defence on the cheap have been over for some time - despite what HMT would prefer.

Certainly a contrast with Starmer’s naïve fence-sitting.

However, the agreement was wrong then and wrong now. Starmer’s actions last year - hinging the agreement on US support - demonstrated his naïveté and his inability to make political decisions himself.

This by @anneapplebaum.bsky.social is excellent www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...

The embarrassing capitulation of the EU on trade and energy in the summer, followed by the humiliating U-turn of the EU over tech regulation in the autumn didn't even buy us goodwill from Trump to make it to the spring. A lesson for appeasers.

Especially when the electorate is firmly pro-Ukraine and anti-Trump. It can quite easily be sold as a Trump/ Putin tax.

"Being pragmatic does not mean being passive" would land better if our pragmatic approach wasn't so passive. We are talking about working *with* the country which is openly threatening us and other allies. To say that isn't passivity is pretty bold.

This is the issue with Starmer’s Trump strategy. He is failing to capitalise on the time he’s bought. Instead of preparing the country for the inevitable he continues to insist that choices don’t need to be made and, in the case of defence, money doesn’t really need to be spent.

Yet again, Starmer demonstrates an uncanny ability to prove to his opponents that he’s a political coward. Instead of continuing to stand in lockstep with European allies, he splits off to maintain the fiction of not needing to choose between Europe and an increasingly hostile US.

Weak, weak, weak. This appeasement must end. Starmer should be uniting with our allies against Trump's threats, not splitting off to suck up to him.

Democratic spinelessness is putting paid any pretence that Trump is an aberration and a return to the status quo ante is possible. Then again, what more should we have expected from them?

If the local authorities in question are asking for their elections to be delayed for *one* year, it's not reasonable to assert - without justification - that Labour are doing so for partisan purposes.

Since this is about Greenland economic counter-measures may be only a (small) part of the picture. But the lesson the EU previously drew - to placate Trump - has now been falsified. Brussels should punch back to raise the costs for the US and get Trump to back down, 8/8

SAFE negotiations collapsed over money. The DIP delayed over money. Yet again, HMT demonstrates its utter inadequacy by hindering meaningful action on defence investment at a time of increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Once again, Starmer demonstrates his fantastic political acumen by distracting attention away from tangible achievements and the Tories and Reform going at each other. Timing aside, sacking Streeting would increase the chance of a challenge, not decrease it.

Starmer keeps using this line, & it's bonkers. Most importantly, it's untrue: the party that ended Free Movement, ran the "hostile environment" & made Suella Braverman Home Sec did not run "an experiment in open borders". It's also politically mad. Voters who believe this will not vote for Starmer

Providing refuge to Ukrainians fleeing Putin‘s invasion, British nationals leaving Hong Kong, and those who helped the British and Coalition forces in Afghanistan is not an „open borders experiment“. With nasty language like this, it’s no wonder Labour‘s base are deserting them.