[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.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I like Naomi Smith, and I'm sure she didn't write the headline, but what exactly is the plan here?

Keir Starmer has a historic opportunity to fix this awful Brexit – if he follows this plan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pean-union

To her credit, she acknowledges that the EU is at fault too on not agreeing the Defence programme, which is more acknowledgement of the practical difficulties than usual. And (unlike the Liberal Democrats) she applauds the Government for trying to make legislating for closer allignment easier.

But would joining the Pan-Mediterranean convention really add 2% to GDP? That seems like a lot for someone nobody much had heard of till recently. The Single Market is surely where the gains lie, but (aside from Zack Polanski, who'd piss the EU off for other reasons) nobody is yet willing to accept freedom of movement (and not doubt other politically difficult things) as a price worth paying for it.

[Youngian]

Heard Naomi last week on a podcast point that the UK is way down the agenda of problems the EU is facing.

[Boiler]

A sensible (and highly rated) BTL comment in the Guardian today.

The popular critical reaction to Starmer’s response to Trump’s actions in Venezuela was illuminating. It demonstrated how the anti-Starmer bandwagon has clouded people’s judgment. Starmer’s failure to forthrightly condemn the US military action as unlawful was dismissed as ‘weak’, ‘shameful’ and demonstrating that the UK was a ‘poodle’ of the USA. Initially it went unnoticed by many that Starmer’s response was coordinated with that of the EU and expressed in similar terms. Like the UK, in its official statement of January 4th, the EU did not categorically condemned the U.S. military operation and arrest. Like Starmer it chose a cautious diplomatic wording focused on de-escalation, legal norms, and democratic process.

When it did become clear that the UK and the EU were taking a similar approach the general reaction in the UK was that both were ‘weak’ and ‘unprincipled’. But that was not the reaction in the EU.
The zeal for Starmer-bashing blinded British people to the issues that were obvious to people in the EU. And, unlike the Guardian, progressive newspapers in France, Spain and Germany explained the diplomatic pressures on both the UK and the EU which made it difficult for them to denounce the US in strong terms.

And now the Guardian has belatedly acknowledged those pressures. it now appreciates that outright denunciation "risked provoking Trump to withdraw the painstakingly negotiated and fragile US agreement to participate in the Ukraine security guarantees.”

Why did it take so long? If the Guardian journalists had not succumbed to crowd pleasing Starmer bashing and followed the lead of the quality European press they might have realised earlier that the diplomatic approach was necessary and had been urged by Zelenskiy.

Some may say that there is no point in the UK/EU approach because Trump cannot be trusted to observe the guarantees. That may prove to be true. There are no certainties in diplomacy and the approach may indeed prove fruitless but the UK and EU had to take it. Rubio was the author of the Ukraine guarantees and he strongly supported the Venezuelan action. Angering him would certainly have put an end to the guarantees. For that reason Zelenskyy urged the diplomatic approach.

Finally it is clear that Starmer played a leading role in the formulation of the joint UK/EU approach. He is a skilled diplomat who is clearly liked and trusted by Zelenskiy and his colleagues in the EU - skills probably learned from his career as an outstanding lawyer. It’s a shame that he is not appreciated more in the UK. And it’s a shame that the Guardian found it hard to be objective.