Mailwatch(ed) Forum

With some justification, though I find the use of "centrist" a bit tiresome. He sounds more like a pub bore. What time was actually spent on "colonial reparations"? They've got the same policy as every other government. They're not paying any. And meeting with foreign leader isn't a distraction from the job. It is part of the job, and it can be a very efficient way of pushing mutual interests, including on trade. Which benefits the economy, something generally regarded as being an important part of government business. Nobody's sat there thinking "If only Keir weren't meeting that foreign guy, we'd have got energy prices down this afternoon"

This is great too. Just reform pensions and benefits and wind power! Bish bash bosh! How difficult can it be? I'm in charge of strategy! And just cut taxes! He's not actually got much interest in policy. Did he get distracted when Ed Milliband was explaining why wind producers sometimes get paid for energy that they produce but which can't be handled by the grid? I think we're working on the issue. As Ed would have made clear, and the Prime Minister's likely support.

I think this chap might have said some of the drivel that's been routinely assumed was coming from Morgan McSweeney. They're well rid of him.

I don't really get this point though. Has the Government "lied repeatedly"? I seem to remember being fairly clear about the shit we're in, and the time it would take to improve things. And even the big mistakes on eg (economic) immigration, are basically what was promised. My impression was that "change" was going to take a long time.

Likewise, I'm struggling to think what they lied about repeatedly, nor that they didn't do their homework.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Jan 02, 2026 10:29 pm Likewise, I'm struggling to think what they lied about repeatedly, nor that they didn't do their homework.

This is one of those claims where the answer is "Everything" and so the narrative becomes established.

Guardian’s response is “Experts say Government’s own fault it’s shit because it can fix stuff”.

Nobody in the Government said it couldn’t. Starmer said it takes longer to fix stuff than it should, that’s all. Which everyone seems to agree with.

There’s a rather contradictory attitude to the senior civil service. Nobody on the Guardian or BTL thought Simon Case was up to it. Civil servants appearing before Select Committees tend not to be too popular. But if Starmer or anyone else suggests the system is sub-optimal, that’s wrong too.

All part of this bizarre “the Government has failed” stuff. After 18 months.

I don't really get this point (part of a longer thread contrasting this Government v Thatcher).

The Government so far has passed a load of laws, got more money into various areas, and changed some things. Like all Governments. The problem wasn't ever going to be with passing what it wanted to do. I know James Austin hates immigration policy, but that's the government doing what he seems to suggest it isn't in most areas. Only really on disability cuts has it been forced to change course where clearly it didn't want to.

The difference is surely that Thatcher was met with an hallelujah chorus from the media, where Labour gets a bucket of shit every day. At this stage, Thatcher was still in recession and facing enormous strikes. It didn't look like smart government to anyone but strong partisans at the time.

Plus, when you throw in the House of Lords, they've gotten a lot down.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-int ... -opponents

In particular, the pair were fuming about the forthcoming abolition of hereditary peers. Both agreed, the adviser said, that there should be a deliberate strategy to undermine the government on all its legislation, to slow down debate, and to push the new Lords leader, Angela Smith, to ask No 10 for concessions.

Another recalled a Tory peer gleefully telling the new Labour Lords appointees: “We are going to grind you down.”

Even with an enormous majority in the Commons, Labour has seemed to struggle to pass much of its programme. But by far the hardest slog has been in the Lords.

Labour may yet be on course for a record number of defeats for any governing party, although the parliamentary session has been longer than normal.

Already Labour has faced 111 defeats, with at least four more months to go. The record is 128 defeats for the Conservatives, under Boris Johnson during the 2021-22 session.

Labour peers said virtually every bill had been slowed down, from key manifesto pledges on water regulation to rail nationalisation, Great British Energy and the football regulator. The employment rights bill was repeatedly rejected, even after a major concession.

Amendments are being “de-grouped” at late stages into smaller groups of one or two, meaning debates last hours longer. “Each time it is more or less the same people,” one Labour peer said. “Former Tory MPs, making the same kind of speeches over and over again.”

They're also planning to fuck up the assisted dying bill that the Commons passed. Lots of them can't cope with anyone but their mates being the Government.

Hereditary peers will go, hopefully pretty quickly after the select committee's final report in July, and that's 42 Tories (v 2 Labour) gone. But come on, July? This should have taken about a month. People are slowing stuff down deliberately so they can then do the old "na na na, where's the change?"

Democracy is supreme when it comes to Brexit but the Lords and General Election NOW!!! is another matter.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jan 03, 2026 12:28 pm They're also planning to fuck up the assisted dying bill that the Commons passed. Lots of them can't cope with anyone but their mates being the Government.

Hereditary peers will go, hopefully pretty quickly after the select committee's final report in July, and that's 42 Tories (v 2 Labour) gone. But come on, July? This should have taken about a month. People are slowing stuff down deliberately so they can then do the old "na na na, where's the change?"

The government should be drawing more attention to this.

Various people have. The response is just "don't make excuses".

Adam Bienkov did this with the Trump attack on Iran, said Starmer had backed it when he hadn't. This blatant lie here is too much even for lots of Bluesky.

He's a lobby journalist. Well. we'll be able to check how accurate he's being there too, won't we?

It's not that different from what Macron has had to say. Like many journalists Adam Bienkov treats social media as his beat and knows what his audience want to hear.

From a friend in France:

Just listening to what Macron has been saying, and he’s been no more outspoken than the UK. He’s welcomed the departure of a dictator but completely ignored the role of the Americans. They’re all on eggshells so it’s pointless to just knock Starmer.

It's so obvious, this stuff.

But for about half of Bluesky, it's like they've never heard of diplomacy or read the news. Some, like the crank left, genuinely wouldn't care if Ukraine and the Baltics were overrun tmrw, provided a few Lithuanians were allowed to live in a field near the border with Kalliningrad, as part of a generous "negotiated" settlement. But most do care about Ukraine, and seem to be piling in just as rashly.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jan 03, 2026 10:17 pm It's so obvious, this stuff.

But for about half of Bluesky, it's like they've never heard of diplomacy or read the news. Some, like the crank left, genuinely wouldn't care if Ukraine and the Baltics were overrun tmrw, provided a few Lithuanians were allowed to live in a field near the border with Kalliningrad, as part of a generous "negotiated" settlement. But most do care about Ukraine, and seem to be piling in just as rashly.

Talking of Bluesky.

Did you see Starmer doing his longform interview with Kuenssberg this morning ?

Thought he was very good, if perhaps a bit too equivocal on Trump’s kidnap of Maduro and his missus. But it’s hard to know how to react. Trump is fucking mental, is breaching international law and norms at will (and thereby offering justification to Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Xi’s malevolent intentions towards Taiwan), but Starmer needs to keep him on side as a “friend”to the UK , for all kinds of reasons. Maybe we should get King Charlie to have Trump over for another fancy dress fol-de-rol?

One thing for sure : I wouldn’t have Starmer’s job for a gold clock.

One thing for sure : I wouldn’t have Starmer’s job for a gold clock.

Who do I want standing next to Donald (Tusk not Trump) inspecting troops from both our countries in next few years? It ain't Nigel, Zack, Lucy, Andy, Angela, Ed, Jenrick or Kemi.

Yep. You might add Palestine to Venezuela, despite that being for so many people the most important conflict in the world. Against which background, the UK's (near) arms embargo to Israel and recognition of Palestine was a fairly bold policy, rather than cowardly 'complicity in genocide".