[Tubby Isaacs]

"Why aren't the Government doing better?", the Guardian constantly asks. Weak sauce attacks like this which get shared with dramatic sounding previews probably don't help. "Revealed" though.

Government "directly lobbying" to get The Open held at Trump-owned Turnberry, per, er, one anonymous source. Other sources have said they just asked about the issue in general, which well you might do if the American President was in your ear about it, and on this occasion will probably remember to keep raising the issue. That's basic fact finding, no?

It won't happen because local infrastructure isn't up to it. The R&A say so on the record. The idea that the Government are going to shell out a fortune for new roads so that the Open can be held there in 2028 (the next 3 years are already allocated) is obvious nonsense.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... tournament

[The Weeping Angel]

With 'friends' like The Guardian, who needs enemies?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Story that the government is pushing to give Trump a golf tournament at his place in Scotlaned.

The headline:

Revealed: Sources say bosses at R&A, which organises the annual golf tournament, were quizzed about 2028 event

First para:

Senior Whitehall officials have asked golf bosses whether they can host the 2028 Open championship at Donald Trump’s Turnberry course after repeated requests from the US president, sources have said.

But...

One source described the talks as direct lobbying from the government, although others said officials had asked about hypothetical problems with the idea, rather than insisting that it happen.

(my emphasis)

So, the US government asked if this could happen, civil servants responded saying no, and this is 'revealed'. On the basis of a single, anonymous source.

This is dishonest, even by the standards of British journalism. Even by the standards of the tankies at The Guardian.

The guilty party is Kiran Stacey. Biasly gives him a 57% reliability rating.

[The Weeping Angel]

Another example here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ministers

The headline is a blow to ministers, but buried right at the end

However, the UK is making better headway with India and the EU.

Negotiators held crunch talks on Tuesday afternoon with their Indian counterparts, after Piyush Goyal, India’s trade minister, told businesses at a roundtable in London that 25 out of 26 aspects of the deal had been agreed.

UK officials were hopeful of finalising the deal on Tuesday, but one source briefed on the talks said they broke up without agreement on national insurance contributions. A longstanding sticking point has been Delhi’s concern that Indians working temporarily in the UK on business visas must pay national insurance despite not being eligible for UK pensions or social security benefits.

The expectation is that at least one more round of talks will be needed to clinch any deal. Officials are in discussions over a potential visit by Keir Starmer to India this year once an agreement has been finalised.

Meanwhile, British ministers including Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, and Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, met Maroš Šefčovič, the EU trade commissioner, amid signs that a UK-EU deal could be getting closer.

Šefčovič tweeted afterwards it had been “a productive exchange on securing balanced trade relationships, as we face new global dynamics”.

The Guardian revealed last week that Brussels was willing to make major concessions to its proposals for a youth mobility scheme to get a deal over the line, including limiting work visas to 12 months, restricting the sectors EU citizens can work in.

However, experts say that the plans to align British agricultural standards with European ones would make it impossible to give concessions on US demands to align with US ones instead.

Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe, told MPs on Tuesday: “If the Americans say you have to lift the regulations that restrict the access of our goods to your market, that is incompatible with what we need to do to sign a … deal with the EU.”

[Tubby Isaacs]

They've ruled out US agricultural standards lots of times. "Trade deal with the US" basically means something simple to get the tariffs off. But a bunch of people are determined to push "USA over Europe" narratives.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Story that the government is pushing to give Trump a golf tournament at his place in Scotlaned.

The headline:

Revealed: Sources say bosses at R&A, which organises the annual golf tournament, were quizzed about 2028 event

First para:

Senior Whitehall officials have asked golf bosses whether they can host the 2028 Open championship at Donald Trump’s Turnberry course after repeated requests from the US president, sources have said.

But...

One source described the talks as direct lobbying from the government, although others said officials had asked about hypothetical problems with the idea, rather than insisting that it happen.

(my emphasis)

So, the US government asked if this could happen, civil servants responded saying no, and this is 'revealed'. On the basis of a single, anonymous source.

This is dishonest, even by the standards of British journalism. Even by the standards of the tankies at The Guardian.

The guilty party is Kiran Stacey. Biasly gives him a 57% reliability rating.

It's worse than that. There are other sources who deny "lobbying", which are, in fairness, quoted but left out of the headline. Reminds me a bit of the Hindujas "scandal" back in the day where Peter Mandelson allegedly "lobbied" the minister responsible for passports, Mike O'Brien. If that actually happened, as opposed to "They asked me to call you, you know how rich people are, what are the procedures?" No fan of Mandelson, but given that years later it would be seriously argued that the BBC Chairman should be arranging loans for the Prime Minister, I think this scandal hasn't aged very well.

The Hindujas didn't get their passports, Just like Trump won't get to host The Open.

[Andy McDandy]

Yes, this is "Beckham Tipped for next Bond" territory.

1. The people who make the James Bond films are looking to recast the main role.

2. To generate a bit of excitement, journos list a load of currently hot actors who could play the part.

3. This gets widened to slebs the paper know will shift copies/generate hits.

4. "Let's photoshop David Beckham into a Tuxedo".

[Dalem Lake]

Hate the new layout of the Guardian's home page. It's clearly been tweaked for scrolling on mobile but on desktop it's horrible. This morning I've been greeted by a massive fucking picture of JD Vance's stupid face.

[Boiler]

Agreed - it looks shite on my laptop.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The news is something somebody doesn't want you to know. So here's the Guardian getting a top story out of Lindsay Hoyle declaring gifts, all of them of any value, which I don't think he had to do at all.

House of Commons speaker has kept almost 300 gifts over past four years
Lindsay Hoyle’s freebies include champagne, whisky, food hampers, skincare sets and presents for his pets

The story is actually better than the headline, making clear that lots of these are diplomatic gifts, others pretty small (for some reason. Priti Patel buys him a Christmas pudding every year). And a serious point is made that MPs receive the same stuff but don't have to report anything under £300, which is too low. It points out rightly that if the Speaker has to meet a foreign dignitary, it's quite a nice touch for him to turn up wearing the tie/cuff links he's previously received from that country. So is that even a "gift", really? And he shares some gifts with his office.

So what are we left with? Thin gruel really, dressed up as "look at them, they're all living high on the hog". I swear the Guardian wants Farage to win,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... gifts-kept

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm also getting a bit fed up with every change to immigration policy being written up like Yvette Cooper is chucking babies in the sea. Some of the provisional policy may be wrong headed (eg on care visas, but there's scope there for a "we've listened to business and we're softening that"). And we can do without rubbish like "The Tories ran an experiment in open borders". But there's a longstanding issue with population rising and housing capacity not rising enough with it. Yet all we seem to get on house building is "Labour smashes up nature" and (via someone they keep publishing called Phineas Harper) "there are plenty of homes").

Labour are announcing stuff all the time, yet the Guardian barely notices lots of it. By contrast every scary sounding single source leak is written up. The impression given to the readership by this is "why isn't Labour doing good things, why does it just chase Reform voters?" In case they haven't got the message, a load of "Labour is chasing Reform voters but it should be doing good things" comment pieces get written up.

[The Weeping Angel]

A Farage government will be a disaster, but on the plus side, lots of clicks for the Guardian, and they can pose as the defenders of Liberal Britain.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Here's an example.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... l-backlash

Plan to fast-track appeals of some UK asylum seekers could face legal backlash
Move to speed up appeals of people in government-funded hotels could be challenged on discrimination grounds, officials warn

The policy is that appeals from asylum seekers living at state expense, mostly in hotels, get dealt with as a priority ahead of those living for free with hosts, friends and relatives. That's sensible and like what the Home Office decided to do when I worked there with prisoners, where people on remand were brought to trial as priority over people who weren't onboard remand.

The Guardian goes with the most negative angle possible. The officials acknowledge there may be legal challenge to it, as is their job when making a submission. That's written up as "could face legal backlash". There they go again, Labour, the bastards! It could face no legal backlash at all. Or the court could say "policy is fine, you just need to give a bit more time for the appeal to be put together".

The obligatory "Labour is doing this because it's scared of Reform" is of course present and correct, When it's actually something the National Audit Office might suggest.

[Andy McDandy]

Legal backlash sounds scarier than established procedure. Also, "could" normally indicates that the folks in the newsroom had some fun thinking up hypothetical situations which were good for padding out what was otherwise a rewritten press release.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'm reminded of something Desmond Tutu once said about the difference Englishman and Afrikaans. They call you a dog, and you know where you are. The Englishman smiles and betrays you. I mean, at least with the Mail, you know where you are with them.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Legal backlash sounds scarier than established procedure. Also, "could" normally indicates that the folks in the newsroom had some fun thinking up hypothetical situations which were good for padding out what was otherwise a rewritten press release.

Yeah, it's literally what happens with every policy. "Are there any risks here?" "Yeah, could be challenged in court". If it is challenged successfully, the government won't do it.

Labour chases Reform!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Story that the government is pushing to give Trump a golf tournament at his place in Scotlaned.

The headline:

Revealed: Sources say bosses at R&A, which organises the annual golf tournament, were quizzed about 2028 event

We seem to have managed to get the trade deal without Trump getting the 2028 Open. Add to the other things that didn't happen- chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, dropping the digital service tax and handing over the NHS.

Of course, we don't know what happened, but seems more likely that it was nothing more than somebody from the Government asking the R&A and them saying "Of course not" or "Possibly, if he's paying for all the extra roads". The R&A probably aren't a bunch of Labour partisans, so what does it really mean that one person said it was "lobbying", when others said it wasn't?

[davidjay]

The R&A have said they're not allowing the tournament to be overshadowed by any course's owner.