[Tubby Isaacs]

Politicians weren't like kickball managers back then though.

I wonder how Sunny Jim would have dealt with the Falklands?

He'd have defended them properly in the first place.

[davidjay]

Politicians weren't like kickball managers back then though.

I wonder how Sunny Jim would have dealt with the Falklands?

He'd have defended them properly in the first place.

I believe there was a bit of sabre-rattling round about 1977 and he sent a gunboat.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is typical of a lot of intelligent commentators on Starmer, and Higham is a policy heavyweight, on development. Getting irritated by a bland phrase that hardly anyone would have noticed as a sign of Starmer being something bad. I think he's noticed the problems with Putin and Trump, David.

[Andy McDandy]

If he said "We're stuck between two nuclear grade cunts and everything is fucking terrifying", he'd get stick for that, too.

Sometimes you have a shit hand and you need to play it the best you can.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah. I think he's doing that reasonably well, but I can see why people might disagree. What I can't see is getting annoyed at a phrase that at worst barely means anything, and at best, might mean something he misunderstands- ie we have the power to control our what we do at this moment, rather than something about Brexit. And I'm surprised he takes "Customs Union" seriously.

[The Weeping Angel]

Perhaps some of these commentators might reflect on their own role. If all you do is tell people that the government is sat there all day upsetting liberals, it might have an effect on liberal support. Certainly it's reactionary on immigration but it's doing other stuff which liberals like.

I think few of them have any conception of the challenges of accommodating the population increases they call for. Easy to say "just build the homes FFS", but that upsets lots of people too. I hope the Government follows through (and to be fair to Elledge, he gives it credit for trying) but that'll be another stick to beat them with. Note how the Lib Dems (from the late 2010s and probably earlier) noted that this was a good way of taking down Tories, first in local government, then in lots of Westminster seats. Doubtless the reaction from these pundits will be "well the electorate are idiots", and we may or may not agree. So why are they so sure the government could have just put up income tax or whatever and not got killed?

tbh, the only thing that social liberals seem to care about is immigration, plus we get the deliberately alienating their core vote thrown in as well.

[Boiler]

If he said "We're stuck between two nuclear grade cunts and everything is fucking terrifying", he'd get stick for that, too.

Sometimes you have a shit hand and you need to play it the best you can.

With the largest USAF base in Europe at Lakenheath... (and trust me, it's fucking HUGE).

Starmer doesn't have so much a shit hand as a hand someone's shat in.

[Tubby Isaacs]

With the largest USAF base in Europe at Lakenheath... (and trust me, it's fucking HUGE).

Starmer doesn't have so much a shit hand as a hand someone's shat in.

Heck of a tangent here, but USAF bases...

Have you ever heard of this programme?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)

Hilarious (if a bit cruel) reality tv hoax where some plucky volunteers are told they're going to be Russian cosmonauts and are flown to a disused base near Ipswich, which is kitted out like it's in Russia, and lectured by actors. Three "winners" are taken up into "space". They are incredibly good sports.

[Samanfur]

I remember that. There was also an impressive look backstage at how the production team curated the most suggestible bunch of contestants they could get - that kind of BTS access was a novelty for the genre at the time.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's a good YouTube documentary on it. Actually, it might be what you're talking about. It was a pretty brave bit of commissioning, because of the risk that the hoax could easily have been rumbled, which would have left a hole in the tv schedule. It was on prime time, so don't know what Channel 4 would have done. Maybe Johnny Vaughan was right that they'd have had to put on repeats of Jamie's School Dinners.

[Abernathy]

A question that has been going through my mind repeatedly in relation to Keir Starmer’s well, shall we say, equivocal reaction to Donald Trump’s incursion in Venezuela and the kidnap of its president is this : At what point will our Prime Minister realise that it is time to abandon the “Trump’s best friend” charade made necessary by the need not to endanger his continuing project to re-build the UK, its economy, and society and make it clear that the UK condemns Trump’s reckless breaching of international law and the United Nations Charter by his actions in Venezuela ?

Surely, that time is fast approaching. Emily Thornberry has been clear and unequivocal in condemning what Trump has done. Mark Carney, too. Starmer is an international human rights lawyer by training. He knows that what Trump has done breaches international law. But he seemingly can’t- or won’t - say so.

I understand that Starmer faces a difficult balancing act in terms of the UK’s best interests being to some considerable extent dependent on appeasing the capricious and vindictive nutjob who currently occupies The White House. But how much longer can Starmer keep on equivocating in the way that he is doing? How will he react when Trump mobilises US forces into Greenland, as he appears to be planning to do ?

[Tubby Isaacs]

He's criticized Trump directly on Greenland. He did on Palestine and has on Ukraine too.

This isn't Blair-Bush or Thatcher-Reagan. It's as far as he (and Europe) can go in the context of an almost literal madman being US President, with no congressional and very little legal oversight. Neither Blair nor Thatcher were in a situation anything like as difficult. Harold Wilson stayed out of Vietnam (though the policy would now be called "complicity", not clever diplomacy by lots of people). He didn't have to worry about LBJ getting up one morning and supporting the Soviet Union.

We hold on till Trump becomes too much of a liability for the only people who have any power to clip his wings. That might not be too long. Kaja Kallas isn't exactly steaming into Trump, and she's Estonian. Thornberry is further away from the sharp end. I don't mean to criticize her or anyone else who calls out Trump. It's important that they do. I'd just like some of them to show greater understanding of the Prime Minister's position.

[Oboogie]

A question that has been going through my mind repeatedly in relation to Keir Starmer’s well, shallwe say, equivocal reaction to Donald Trump’s incursion in Venezuela and the kidnap of its president is this : At what point will our Prime Minister realise that it is time to abandon the “Trump’s best friend” charade made necessary by the need not to endanger his continuing project to re-build the UK, its economy, and society and make it clear that the UK condemns Trump’s reckless breaching of international law and the United Nations Charter by his actions in Venezuela ?

Surely, that time is fast approaching. Emily Thornberry has been clear and unequivocal in condemning what Trump has done. Mark Carney, too. Starmer is an international human rights lawyer by training. He knows that what Trump has done breaches international law. But he seemingly can’t- or won’t - say so.

I understand that Starmer faces a difficult balancing act in terms of the UK’s best interests being to some considerable extent dependent on appeasing the capricious and vindictive nutjob who currently occupies The White House. But how much longer can Starmer keep on equivocating in the way that he is doing? How will he react when Trump mobilises US forces into Greenland, as he appears to be planning to do ?

What would you like Starmer to say/do and what consequences -specifically what benefits to the UK - do you anticipate from those actions?

[Boiler]

What would you like Starmer to say/do and what consequences -specifically what benefits to the UK - do you anticipate from those actions?

I've seen this asked numerous times BTL on the Guardian today of many a post; it never gets an answer despite being a very reasonable question.

I just keep thinking a variation of "Muttley, DO something!!" would be their answer.

[Tubby Isaacs]

See also above the line on The Guardian. Nesrine Malik dealt with these possible repercussions by saying their might be some, then saying "but...".

[Crabcakes]

What would you like Starmer to say/do and what consequences -specifically what benefits to the UK - do you anticipate from those actions?

I know it is absolutely not an option in the real world, but it would be lovely if he could say "For diplomatic reasons, I will say [blah] for now, but I also invite you to ask me what I think again when I or President Trump leave office."

We all know he, and most reasonable world leaders, probably thinks this is what it is - a diplomatic disaster presided over by a senile fucking lunatic being egged on by suck-ups and asset-stripping ghouls. But there's nothing to be gained and probably much to lose by saying so (including any sort of influence over Trump that may have at least some hope of preventing future adventures in idiocy).

[Oboogie]

Exactly.
Condemnation from Starmer might lead to a short lived boost to his personal ratings but that would last precisely as long as it took Trump to announce his retaliation against the UK. At which point, Starmer would be declared recklessly incompetent and the demands for his removal from office would be redoubled.

It would certainly have zero benefit to Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland, Canada, Ukraine, the Baltic States or anywhere else.
Only Russia, China and the EU have enough clout to influence Trump.

[Abernathy]

What would you like Starmer to say/do and what consequences -specifically what benefits to the UK - do you anticipate from those actions?

Well, Crabcakes says it for me (as (s)he so often does) in respect of the real world realpolitik.

My post was really more of a rhetorical lament than a call to action.

[The Weeping Angel]

Sucking up to Trump latest.

[Oboogie]

What would you like Starmer to say/do and what consequences -specifically what benefits to the UK - do you anticipate from those actions?

Well, Crabcakes says it for me (as (s)he so often does) in respect of the real world realpolitik.

My post was really more of a rhetorical lament than a call to action.

I'm sure we all fantasise about Starmer telling Trump to fuck off. Some of us may fantasise about the SAS abducting him and putting him on trial. The fantasies may be enjoyable, what would inevitably follow, not so much.