[Tubby Isaacs]

Article on Mamdani.

At Zohran Mamdani’s block party, I observed a simple truth: people want more politics, not less
Samuel Earle

Who's got some good communication skills, but as some point out below the line has promised things he has no legal capacity to deliver. But we can wish him luck, fair enough.

Who's the bad guy, doing it wrong? You'll be amazed to hear.

Unlike Mamdani, Starmer has assumed that people want less politics. As he explained in January 2024, after 14 years of Tory misrule, people wanted “a politics that treads a little lighter on all of our lives”, because “the thing about populism” is that it “needs your full attention … and that’s exhausting, isn’t it?” In this vision, the best prime minister is one who lets us go about our business in peace once again.

Oh, that guy! Who doesn't seem to have said "less politics" at all (whatever that would mean). What he was referencing was populism being in your face all the time, which is what the populist right do. There's a rather good example on another thread- attempted culture war from some volunteers falling out at the National Trust.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-politics

[Tubby Isaacs]

Stop doing foreign affairs wrong, everyone! Says Nesrine Malik.

As with all this stuff, the case against what she's saying is put in one sentence, then ignored.

One could argue that it is wise not to anger Trump – not even with a statement of the truth of his actions – and ask what a country such as the UK could do anyway.

Ukraine is mentioned, but only in terms of Putin now looking less bad. As a live war, in Europe, nothing. She's got precisely the same interest in spending a lot more on defence as most of the left- zero. No mention of economic damage to the UK, either. Columnists at newspapers aren't as vulnerable to US tariffs as others in the UK. And while I'm no keener than most on AI. it's noticeable that journalists are less sanguine about job losses in their own sector.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t#comments

[Tubby Isaacs]

Letter today. I've cut the author's name off.

Polly Toynbee writes of Keir Starmer: “The venom against a man who is serious and decent, with an impressive tally of good done, is a mystery to me” (Labour could oust Starmer, he could elegantly step aside – but without a plan, it will all be for nothing, 30 December). Let me enlighten her: all those good things are overshadowed and obscured by the more conspicuous contemptible ones.

This includes sucking up (other phrases are available) to a particularly changeable and untrustworthy head of a foreign state; appeasing the financial markets at the cost of unrelieved austerity for our public services; continuing to underfund and privatise the NHS, the single thing almost all of the electorate value most highly; approving sales of arms which he must be aware may be used for war crimes; selectively criminalising protest; equivocating towards our European friends; not only failing to call out but actively seeking to appease the far right; and, in short, not leading a Labour government.

What sort of paper thinks this rubbish reflects well on its readers?

[Abernathy]

Why omit the author’s name? Was it “A. Cunt” ?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Can't remember. Disingenuous and Dishonest of Tunbridge Wells, perhaps. "Austerity" is completely untrue, very obviously. What price does she think we should pay for borrowing? It's not low now.

What's her objection to European policy exactly?

[Boiler]

What's her objection to European policy exactly?

It's not "Rejoin now"?

[davidjay]

For all the many words the Left use, 'compromise' will never be one of them.

[kreuzberger]

For all the many words the Left use, 'compromise' will never be one of them.

I'm a raging lefty and "compromise" is the only word I've ever known. Forcibly or otherwise.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's not "Rejoin now"?

Might be that, but she says "equivocating". Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but that seems to refer to something the Government's said. They said before the election they saw the need for a closer relationship, and they've sought to carry that out since. They're getting it in the neck today for trying to pass something which will make it easier to agree realignment, which is quite a clear sign of intent, one might have thought.