Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 7:44 pm Dianne Abbott (who ?) on C4 news said she thought that the applause was “staged”.

What. A. Fucking. Idiot.

Roughly translated, nobody much agreed with her.

Political commentary. And Gaby (who I keep calling Gaby Roslin) isn't by any means among the worst. As someone BTL says, what does this "vision" stuff actually mean? There's a manifesto we can look at, and per Full Fact, lots of it seems to be happening. I don't agree with restricting student and care visas, but if you were so minded, you could say there was a vision there about what level of net immigration is appropriate, and by no means a vision confined only to Farage and Goodwin.

I alighted on Gaby because she actually noted the special needs policy, so is at least doing something beyond the others. One wonders how that policy relates to this "vision thing". Perhaps we could just judge it on its merits?

Wormald is a Tory placeman.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 5:05 pm
Limb? Out on his treacherous Scotch arse, I hope. I have never trusted that slippery scroat.

Ahem. Treacherous Scottish arse, if you please. As you ought to know, Scotch is a golden nippy drink.

Maybe it’s not quite dawned on these journalists that the reason there is no obvious replacement because it’s not 2 years into a 5 year term after a election that was a landslide.

Who was Cameron’s challenger? Only Johnson showed up after 5 years, Osborne was his obvious replacement and would without Brexit probably replaced him.

May at a push was also a possibility but Johnson, Truss and Sunak who they ended up on where never PM material.

Nethier is Badenoch or Jenrick.

Blair only ever had Brown. After 14 years a whole list of challengers don’t just show up.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 3:21 pm

mattomac wrote: ↑Mon Feb 09, 2026 2:57 pm
Guy can frankly shaft himself with a rusty spanner. He thinks government is incredibly easy and he has all the solutions odd how hes never tested the theory.

Stephen Bush is a massively pompous poor man's Sam Freedman. Freedman tends to concentrate on stuff he's seen close up, or from which he can reasonably draw analogy (so he's seen education reform, as it was called, close up, so he reasonably draws lessons on how you might reform other areas). Bush doesn't seem to have done anything.

"Warmed over Millibandism" is a ridiculous phrase. Milliband in Government is doing stuff way beyond what he contemplated as leader. Reeves is much more expansive in terms of spending and borrowing. Workers rights weren't a Milliband era priority. Nor was planning, which has the potential for the OBR to significantly upgrade growth forecasts.

Of course, lots of critics want more of the stuff Bush hates. Funny old game. And it's easy for this "radical centre" to get above itself. They were almost all telling us the WFA had to go. It did, and was enormously unpopular.

Sam Freedman in his Substack, tried to set out what a post-Starmer future would look like, mostly concluding that not a lot would change, but there might be more emphasis on stuff that appeals to progressives.

Would depend who the leader is though?

Wormald is a mandarin one is better off without. Mate of Gove...