Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Both Starmer and Burnham have been happy for the cops to deal with these people and hope that it doesn’t spread more than it has.

I think Burnham would be within his rights to be irritated by this article from Sadiq.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sadiq-khan

Nothing directly against Burnham, but hints at the need for the Government to "reassure the public by reaffirming its commitment to net zero and making clear that it will continue to reduce our reliance on oil and gas and to invest in green projects."

The Guardian duly fills in the gaps by linking it to Rosebank and Jackdaw approval, as if this is contradictory to the very ambitious programme Starmer started (I know not everyone agrees with me about this). A few people have suggested that Burnham might be less good than Starmer on climate (which I'd have thought was a serious reason not to get rid of Starmer, but we lost that one). So far, I think he's been ok. The VAT coming off electricity is well timed to help the take up of electric cars and heat pumps.

I guess we'll see. And as I say, Burnham is entitled to be annoyed by Sadiq here.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 5:35 pm Both Starmer and Burnham have been happy for the cops to deal with these people and hope that it doesn’t spread more than it has.

That's not enough for Bluesky; Burnham must condemn in the strongest terms and make it clear that racism is bad.

Bluesky has a point, but I can see the Government's point too.

Example here

Whenever shit goes down - and whatever they say, it's almost always either caused or provoked by the fash - police and politicians will invariably start with how they support the right to protest. Well what about the right not to have violent thugs kicking off next door, or while you're trying to go shopping? The arseholes in Thetford went out with violence as their prime motive. They weren't going to 'protest', they were going to cause as much damage as they could.