I can’t be the only one who suspects that Sir Keir may be an example of high-functioning autism. Some would say ‘suffers from’ but it is we who bear the consequences when someone in high authority is not ‘neurotypical.’
There are worse flaws: think of narcissistic psychopaths or messianic dreamers - have we not had such governing us before? Then again, what normal person wants to have - or could attain - the top job?
Children who are ‘on the spectrum’ of autism have difficulties in social communication - not just with words but in their facial expressions and body language. They may not understand others’ minds or grasp underlying meanings in what is said to them. They are instinctively sensed as different by their fellows, who with the cruelty of the conformist young will tend to shun or bully them.
They do have emotions - often they get on well with animals, who are not so tricky. But for them human social intercourse can be like a tourist trying to speak Greek and their rhythm of responses is halting. As a result they can be misunderstood as impassive, unfeeling. Dan Hodges in the MoS reports a senior government official as saying Starmer is ‘a very strange man. There's no empathy there. You try to talk him through the implications of what he's proposing and he goes blank.’
Asperger’s types can be very intelligent but faced with a largely social world that is unpredictable and sometimes frightening or painful they may turn to a model that they can understand and control; not just computer games but - if they have sufficient power - grand schemes with niches for everyone else. In reality the model is bound to be inadequate and the Aspie will be intolerant of ‘square pegs,’ as Adam Smith noted in 1759:
‘The man of system… is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.’
The rigid thinker fears that dissent threatens his perfect structure, which may break down and explode like the organisations of would-be world masters in Bond films. If challenged he will double down on his carefully planned mission, which would work without a hitch if only everybody did exactly as they were told.
Does this explain Starmer’s insistence that despite strong criticisms of his hapless Foreign Secretary and Chancellor they would stay in post until the next General Election? Or his refusal to budge on the obviously calamitous inheritance tax changes for farmers?
Sir Keir’s project is enormous radical change and is a continuation of the Blairite programme for a constitutional structure that will permanently exclude the ‘forces of conservatism’ - represented by great numbers of people, perhaps the majority if the Brexit referendum is an indication. Great and lasting conflict is therefore built into this machine.
The devolution plan was designed for him by another notorious micro-manager, Gordon Brown, whose own limited tolerance for dissent was illustrated by the ‘bigoted woman’ episode, though at least he didn’t jail her.
It will fail.
One reason is the hubris of imposing a mission statement on us all: ‘The purpose of the New Britain should be grounded in the shared values and aspirations that unite the people across our country.’ There is no such unity and the attempt to impose it will be disastrous. If our political class knew any history they would see how the nation was repeatedly torn apart by attempts to foist on it various forms and structures of the Christian religion, or of kingly governance. Since then we have witnessed the results of Marxism and vengeful ethno-nationalism elsewhere.
Our flexible and evolving liberal democracy is not an ideology but a method. If it works properly it allows everyone a voice and ideas to compete without bloodshed.
Because it does not work properly - because the voting system is so skewed; because the planned scheme of regional governments threatens a proliferation of petty fiefdoms as already exemplified in Scotland and London; because as Mr Vance told Europe ‘you’re running in fear of your own voters’; because the country continues to import potential dangers and further drains on our resources while protestors are squashed - a future civil war in Britain is not unthinkable.
According to David Betz, a professor of war studies at King’s College London, it is already inevitable and could occur within the next five years. He thinks we should now concentrate on mitigating the effects - protecting cultural artefacts, developing regional seats of government (but see above comment on devolution), reviewing the security of energy support systems, nuclear weapons etc against internal threat.
JD is experiencing technical problems, so today we repost an event from 2013: the dragon that attacked Chelyabinsk, Russia on St Valentine's Day 2013. See, they do exist!
"A.D. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery dragons flying across the firmament."
In mythology, there are dragons or wyrms, but also two-legged or legless, poisonous or fiery wyverns, or lindworms. I have seen long ago but cannot now find on the Internet an engraving, possibly sixteenth century, of one of the latter, destroying whole villages with its fiery breath. I wondered then how someone could dare invent something on that scale, so disprovable.
And then on St Valentine's Day 2013 (or 15th February, depending on the time zone you were in at the time), one visited Chelyabinsk.
This time the evidence was direct and undeniable, not merely reconstructed with an artist's imagination. According to James Higham, Russians commonly drive with dashcams because of the risk of fake, compensation-seeking "accidents" like this. And so at last we got the proof, for the world to see.
Down it flew, a long, fiery shape with a snake-like body and no legs, its deafening roar sufficient to blow in windows and doors and knock down walls, the flames of its breath bright enough to cast shadows. Had it not landed in an ice-covered lake, but hit solid ground, the destruction would have been enormous, as it had been a century ago in Tunguska.
Here be dragons.
Images taken from this video compilation, and this.
The Opposition struggles to wrench itself free of the Conservative Party’s lamentable record over the past years and remains vulnerable to Labour’s easy counterattacks.
If they are to succeed in holding the Government to account, their questioning will have to be more focused and they will need to have strength in depth when dealing with woolly and evasive replies.
The PM himself said the decision was ‘wrong’ and he didn’t agree with it. Would he therefore appeal it, asked Badenoch?
Starmer havered, saying the decision was made under the last government; well, “according to their legal framework”; Parliament should make the rules. The Home Secretary’s team was “working on closing this loophole”.
Noting that the PM had avoided the question, Kemi asked whether he would amend the borders Bill now going through Parliament or put forward new legislation? Without choosing either option, Starmer repeated the ‘working on it’ line and resorted to the usual counterpunch on the Conservatives’ former “open borders experiment”.
Then he muddied the waters further by saying that the Tories had voted on Monday “against increased powers to deal with those who are running the vile trade of people-smuggling” and added some Blair-like sloganism: “Same old Tories: open borders, empty promises.”
Here was Badenoch’s opportunity to nail Starmer’s misleading statement on Monday’s vote. During that debate, Chris Philp (Con) had offered a ‘reasoned amendment’, making it clear that the Opposition did indeed support tougher measures to tackle “serious and organised crime”, but “we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them”. The Tories wanted no amnesty for ‘undocumented’ migrants this time, unlike the huge backlog-clearing of 2011.
She missed the chance to expose in PMQs that serious weakness in the Bill and in Labour’s underlying intentions, saying for Philp’s amendment that:
“… the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.”
Philp also noted that the Border Security Commander “cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions … he has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.”
These points had been made in the Commons, but not in the limelight of PMQs, where the public is much more likely to hear them. This was a lost opportunity for a headline-grabbing forensic attack.
Then the PM repeatedly slithered out of the question whether he would appeal the Palestinian case: “She asked me if we are going to change the law and close the loophole in question one – I said yes. She asked me again in question two – and I said yes. She asked me again in question three – it is still yes.”
Three times only! Remember Jeremy Paxman’s twelve, to Michael Howard? In that case, one hardly knew which man to admire more, given Howard’s lightning twists as he evaded the question differently each time. Starmer has not that speed of mind – but he doesn’t need it, since his myrmidon army of MPs can simply bulldoze resistance, as they did to the ‘reasoned amendment’.
Badenoch turned to another vulnerable target, the new Attorney General Baron Hermer, “the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor”, whom Labour’s Lord Glasman has called “the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”.
The Government lawyers appear to have tacitly accepted the tribunal judge’s statement that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis “as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”. How could that adjective ‘indiscriminate’ have been allowed to pass unchallenged? Did this imply a change of our official position on Israel?
A good pin on which to make the PM squirm, but Badenoch pulled it back out smartly and turned to the new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. Starmer was happy to deal with the latter: the individual had worked from Finland under the Tories but would now be UK-based. Returning to the AG, he noted that a previous Conservative AG had been “sacked for breaching national security”. So there!
When will Kemi break the habit of asking two questions in one?
Space does not permit discussion here of all the other matters in this session, but let us glance at three:
Sir Ed Davey (Lib Dem leader) recalled our time as brothers in arms with the Americans, deplored President Trump’s tariffs and suggested revenge imposts on US electric cars; Starmer shamelessly referred to the ‘special relationship’ and said “British steel is an essential part of our heartlands” – skating over issues of Chinese ownership, the EU’s impact over decades, as well as the dire costs of electricity thanks to the Net Zero push.
Similarly, he told Harriet Cross (Con) that “farming is top of the agenda”, though on Monday, he had fled to Cornwall by jet while hundreds of tractors jammed London’s streets. No changes to inheritance tax yet, then. The National Farmers Union welcomed his ‘road map’ apparently; not that bit though, surely.
‘Angel of Death’ Kim Leadbeater, fresh from modifying her Assisted Dying Bill so that cases would not be overseen by a High Court judge after all, but by a committee (selected how?), wanted Starmer’s confirmation that her 2023 ‘Healthy Britain’ report was resulting in moves to make the UK “healthier, happier and more productive” – right up to the point of the medical ‘kill shot’, one supposes.
What is it about the Left that loves death? David Steel’s 1967 Private Members Bill legalised abortion with a Labour Government’s support (10 million terminations so far); now, we are opening the door to routine officially-helped suicides. And as for war – today, Sir Ed Davey was yet again gung-ho for Ukraine and Zelensky.
‘Affairs are now soul-size,’ wrote the poet Christopher Fry in 1951. Now, Britain is indeed in a battle for its soul.
Our leaders think they can avoid addressing in the national forum systemic issues of public order arising from dangerous ideologies. Better - easier, at any rate - to leave such matters for local police and courts to deal with piecemeal.
Yet history will show that ideas, especially in religion, can result in blood and fire. In the sixteenth century Protestant bishops were burned alive outside Balliol College, and hangmen tore the guts out of Catholic priests at Tyburn.
It should be said clearly that the latter activists are very much a minority among their co-religionists, most of whom are not theologians and are busy with work and family.
Like Catholics, their religious community is transnational and so they will feel an affinity with others of their faith abroad. Some of the Muslim unrest we have seen recently in London streets relates to the Middle East and if peace returns there the furore here may die down.
But that is not the whole story. There is an enduring ideological problem. Radical Islamists may be hotheads but they are not ignorant: they are Puritans who can justify their actions from texts in Islam’s holy book and the hadiths - the witness accounts of their prophet’s companions.
The Koran is a book of two halves. As published its chapters or suras - the record of the prophet’s revelations - are not arranged in temporal order. Islamic scholars group them differently, the earlier ones dating from Mohammed’s mission in Mecca as he began to gather his followers. These emphasise prayer and communal charity - which among others drew in younger sons whose life chances were more precarious in a society that favoured the first born and had no welfare state.
The later suras begin with Mohammed’s time in Medina, to where he was driven by the Meccan polytheists who rejected his belief in only one god. As the new movement grew larger and stronger, the tone of the chapters became more uncompromising and aggressive. Peter Townsend, a non-Muslim Australian researcher into Islam, demonstrates from the Koran and the hadiths that physical violence - including killing - in the furtherance of Islam is condoned.
Islamic scholars generally rule that where there are any contradictions in the text the later suras supersede earlier ones; after that the teachings are not to be interpreted and modified according to historical context but apply forever. If that is so, the struggle against the unbeliever cannot end.
Traditionally non-muslims were held to have rejected what we call God and so were His enemies, to be killed or made slaves or second-class subjects. ‘These perspectives have fallen out of favor in recent times, particularly in the West among diasporic Muslim communities,’ says Wikiislam here.
However there is no formal authoritarian structure in Islam - no Pope or bishops. There are respected teachers - mullahs and so on - but it is always possible for some self-appointed firebrand to set the underbrush alight. So there they are, wagging their forefingers on YouTube and inflaming young men and women who desire a shortcut to respect and power.
What is to be done?
Some on social media are talking of a permanent answer: forced ‘remigration.’ This might just be feasible in the cases of illegal immigrants and foreign-born criminals. Mr Trump is planning it in the US; in the UK, the Reform Party’s Rupert Lowe is advocating it. But how can you repatriate someone born in our country?
Besides, most Muslims here are peaceable and law-abiding, so far. As a minority group in Britain and also from the beleaguered outlook of their religion, they are prone to feelings of persecution. What might be their response if they saw a movement to deport them on a massive scale, the innocent along with the guilty?
We should also reflect on the implications for the rest of us. Stalin was able to deport the entire Chechen nation; is that the kind of State we would wish to have? The solution might be far worse than the problem.
Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, later a Dutch MP and now a US citizen proposes a different solution - a doctrinal reformation of the religion. History suggests that such a process could be attended by terrible controversy and slaughter - think of the impact of Martin Luther and Jan Hus. They thought they were reaffirming the fundamentals of their faith; but which devout Muslim will be the first to repudiate his own?
In my view the only realistic solution is for us to be watchful and very strong, much stronger than we have been to date. There has to be one secular law for all and it must be rigorously enforced, woke blether ignored. The soft hand and blind eye turned to the utterly disgusting ‘grooming gangs’ have not only harmed countless women and girls but damaged community relations to the point of riots.
Our society is no longer held together as strongly as it used to be by ties of blood, religion, history and culture. We depend on impartial institutions for our cohesion and safety. Should those bonds break perdition will follow.
We need a publicly and frequently stated commitment to civil law and order that disregards any special pleading.
Power is respected. In the early ninth century, a hundred years after Spain had fallen to Muslim conquerors, the Caliph of Baghdad sent precious gifts to Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor, to acknowledge the latter’s strength and signify diplomatic peace. It is weakness that invites bloodshed.
Vigilant, unrelenting and even-handed (not two-tier) justice preserves the social order for the benefit of all; even for malcontents, would-be rabble-rousers and self-righteous Puritans.
The first question, from Dr Neil Hudson (Con, Epping Forest), highlighted suicide among the under-35s; another from Calum Miller (Lib Dem) spoke of the crisis in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), which leaves youngsters waiting for years - in a case he mentioned, the girl would only become a priority if she was ‘actively trying to kill herself.’ Our young people are suffering.
The PM’s opening remarks began with the fatal stabbing of a Sheffield boy on Monday. Later, Labour’s Louise Haigh echoed his horror and called for ‘a whole-system, cross-Government approach to address the root causes of violence.’ Sir Keir sidestepped that systemic suggestion and focused on knife crime, saying ‘we redouble every step to ensure that young people are kept safe.’
We have been soft on crime for too long. As Starmer told Labour’s Claire Hughes, the Tories ‘effectively told the police to ignore shoplifting of under £200-worth of goods.’ He said Labour had got rid of ‘that shoplifter’s charter’ and that they ‘are working hard to ensure that we take a grip.’ Specifics would be nice.
Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch started with yet another portmanteau question combining the ‘immoral surrender’ of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius - ‘so that north London lawyers can boast at their dinner parties’ - with Ed Miliband’s failure to defend the Rosebank oil and gas field in the litigation by ‘eco-nutters.’ Starmer may need a voice coach but Badenoch needs a trainer in forensic interrogation.
Nevertheless Sir Keir went for the Chagos option, using the phrase ‘national security’ five times in his first reply and saying that Badenoch was not ‘properly briefed’ on the implications. Riposting in kind, Kemi claimed the PM had shown last week that he did not know what was in his own employment and education bills. The spat rambled on into energy and investment issues - ‘all she can do is student politics’ said Starmer, clearly briefed to take the sting out of a common accusation against Labour by throwing it back without looking at the dartboard.
Curiously, Sir Keir blurted that Badenoch’s inadequate security briefings demonstrated that she was ‘not fit to be Prime Minister.’ Does he sense that he may not have four and a half years of his premiership left?
We need to return to Chagos. The concern in the US is considerable. Senator John Kennedy broke off from a speech about Musk’s audit of USAID to discuss the history and strategic importance of the islands, the UN’s non-binding legal ruling and how Starmer has doubled down on his potentially disastrous historic error, offering even more money for even less lease time. ‘Please don’t do it, Prime Minister.’ Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will forgive, said Kennedy, ‘but they will never ever forget.’ Watch him here.
During her desultory questioning Kemi Badenoch made two references to Sir Keir’s voice coach as did Gagan Mohindra (Con) who, perhaps mischievously exploiting Parliamentary privilege, went so far as to name her in his query about a possible breach of lockdown rules on Christmas Eve in 2020. Neither was as bold as Katie Hopkins on Twitter/X - but then La Hopkins is notorious for her recklessness.
Labour’s Johanna Baxter spoke about Scotland’s funding crisis and the Strathclyde pension fund slashing their employer contributions. Starmer’s stock answer to Caledonian matters was that the Scottish government is a failure, they have the powers and money and no excuses left.
There are implications for the rest of Britain in that reply. Once the great devolution Bill has split up the country we may expect to hear more brushoffs like this about problems in other regions; and then the PM can knock off on a Friday evening as he wishes.
Labour’s John Slinger used his question to swipe at Nigel Farage, whose Reform Party has just overtaken both Labour and Conservatives in a YouGov poll. Would the PM reaffirm our right to medical care free at the point of use? Of course he would.
Soon after, Farage began by responding on that point and there was much noise. He noted ‘there appears to be some panic on the Labour Benches’ before proceeding and the Speaker said he was keen ‘to get this question over with.’ It turned out to be a link between the Clacton constituents’ loss of the Winter Fuel Allowance and the £18 billion loss of our military base on the Chagos Islands. The PM said Reform’s policy ‘would be to charge them for using the NHS’ and they should vote Labour ‘because we are stabilising the economy and boosting their jobs.’ Are those truths, readers?
On immigration (another Tory embarrassment), there was a Bill coming; law settles all. Would the Conservatives support it?
On Gaza, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey declared himself ‘alarmed’ at President Trump’s proposal to take over the Strip and ‘forcibly displace’ its people. Starmer replied emotively with images of Emily Damari reunited with her mother and of ‘thousands of Palestinians literally walking through the rubble to try to find their homes and their communities in Gaza.’
Crime, energy, health, immigration, Hamas’ nest on the shores of the Med… big ideas and swift executive action on the other side of the Atlantic. Here?
Maybe it’s an age thing. Two weeks have passed and already President Trump (78) has shaken the American and global establishments, with more to come. By contrast the British Prime Minister has little to show after six months in office other than multiple crises and promises of jam tomorrow. Is it time for Sir Keir (62) to make way for an older man?
The match opened with Labour’s Damien Egan asking the Prime Minister to oppose means testing of the State Pension and committing to the ‘triple lock,’ which Starmer was glad to do, despite its estimated cost of £137.5 billion this year.
Instead of means-testing, how about raising the tax on the income of wealthier retirees, instead of persecuting employment with National Insurance rises? Or perhaps the Assisted Dying Bill (if passed) and the continued use of the M&M (morphine and midazolam) kill-shot for the ill and old will help reduce the strain on the Treasury. Sign that Respect form, everybody?
The Leader of the Opposition began with a solemn reminder of the eightieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
(A shame that the Russians who freed the camp had not been invited, but we are / are not at war with them; it’s complicated.)
The Tories have a problem hurling stones at Labour from within their glass house. Kemi focused on the Employment Bill, which she said either followed previous Conservative policies or would cost a lot. She accused Sir Keir of not knowing the provisions of his own Bill, and even of having misled the House on the Education Bill last week – at that, the Speaker blew his whistle.
Badenoch cited various clauses in the Employment Bill that made it a ‘playground for lawyers’ and gave more power to the trade unions. Employers were hesitant about hiring; changes to sick pay rules might cost up to £1 billion extra. Entrepreneurs were disincentivised and millionaires were fleeing the country. By contrast, the US and Argentina were slashing regulation. Despite the PM’s aspiration to economic growth, he could not tax, borrow or legislate his way to it.
Starmer said that his Chancellor had given “a brilliant speech” and the CBI had celebrated its “positive leadership and a clear vision to kickstart the economy”. The Tories’ claimed “golden inheritance” had been tested on 4 July (with that said, the support of only 20.2 per cent of the electorate was hardly a mandate for his radical changes).
After these exchanges, there were twenty questions – half from Labour – which were about:
Home insulation; the poverty of the disabled and the need to support them into work; the Ipswich bypass and the PM’s determination to back the builders over the blockers (oh, to be a construction company these days!); the shortage in council housing; the economic benefits of paternity leave (this from Luke Charters, awaiting sprog #2); compensation for sacked LGBT military and intelligence personnel; the commemoration for the service victims of a 2005 air disaster in Iraq; problem in getting GP appointments.
Rossendale and Darwen’s Andy MacNae was upbeat about the devolution plan; Starmer said it was “moving power out of Westminster and into the hands of those with skin in the game” (though others might say it was weakening the voice of local people). Glasgow’s Gordon McKee made Scotland’s cold an advantage in bidding to become an “AI growth zone” (though cheap Chinese AI may have just shot that fox).
On the other side of the aisle, Rosie Duffield (Independent) asked about the Drax power station, which has received billions in subsidies (possibly illegally) to burn trees. The PM would look into it…
The Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey once again urged speed in hospital construction, and then asked the PM’s support for a ‘UK-EU customs union’; on the other hand, North Antrim’s Jim Allister complained of over 300 areas of EU economic law governing Northern Ireland and the Republic, rather than Britain – what did this imply for the retention of NI in the UK? Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) reminded us of the Omagh bombing; would Starmer encourage the Irish Government to cooperate in this enquiry into Irish terrorism?
Three other Lib Dems asked about building hospitals, one of them about the impact of NIC rises on ward staffing. Another (Paul Kohler) praised the system of restorative justice between perpetrators and their victims (high-minded, provided there is no hypocrisy).
Only two Conservatives had shots at goal, both right at the end.
One was Sir Jeremy Wright, who said the compensation for Covid vaccine injuries was inadequate. The PM merely said he and the Health Secretary would “look at it”.
It’s a can of worms. America’s new Health Secretary is not only claiming that the disease was genetically modified to target certain races, but that countries with a lower vaccination rate suffered fewer deaths.
The other Tory question, right before the whistle blew, came from Andrew Rosindell, quoting the Office for National Statistics, who say that the UK population will rise to 72.5 million by 2032. Sir Keir countered with the Conservatives’ own record on immigration and vaguely promised that Labour would “bring those numbers down”.
Then the referee blew up – no extra time for that one.
Yesterday, he attempted some damage limitation over the Axel Rudakubana case and the associated initial official and legal responses, but nevertheless, social media has been busy fisking him. It is not true, as some online have claimed, that he represented the Rwandan father in an asylum appeal, but immigration issues have flared up again. Why can the Government not take swift and decisive action, as Trump has done straight from his inception as President?
Belatedly, Labour have announced a public enquiry, previously avoided in favour of locally-based investigations (which might be a prey to local intimidation.) “We will not let any institution deflect from its failures,” said Sir Keir now, bowing to the inevitable.
There was a sense of predators circling at PMQs. Andrew Snowden (Con) twitted Starmer with Labour’s “honeymoon period” sackings, resignations and counter-briefings; was Sir Keir himself the root cause? “We have just won a landslide victory,” came the non-reply.
Not one like Trump’s, it must be said. Bearing in mind the slender support for Labour in July’s General Election, perhaps we should have a referendum on the PM’s radical agenda. There is a triple precedent in Britain for votes on major constitutional change – Brexit (twice) and the Alternative Vote (once, but in the light of 2024, maybe again sometime).
In the light of recent dismal news about unemployment and government borrowing, did Starmer still believe the Chancellor was doing a good job? This was asked by Rebecca Smith (Con), to which Sir Keir gave another flippant answer: “I thought the honourable Lady was just reading out the last Government’s record.”
That was hardly adequate, for as Reeves flew to Davos, a hedge fund manager was warning of a potential “debt death spiral” here. Yet the PM told Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) that, despite our recently increased taxes and regulation, the IMF was predicting the UK would see better growth than Europe. Perhaps we should ‘trust the science’? Or at least compare results with the US, which is taking the opposite tack.
America is certainly giving us pause for thought. Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey wanted a reassurance that our farmers were not going to be undercut in trade deals with the US. The PM replied that “we will never lower our standards”. On the other hand, Trump was yesterday bemoaning America’s trade deficit with Europe and, whereas Sir Keir was telling Mike Martin (Lib Dem) of his commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, The Donald opined to his press conference that Europe needed to boost that to 5%.
Clearly, there is much for us to discuss with our special friends in Washington. Whether or not Lord Mandelson is the man to speak for us is moot; some say yes, while others think he will be somewhat restricted in his duties.
Marx said that capitalism’s inherent contradictions would cause it to collapse. Labour’s paradoxical approach to economic recovery may well do the same for us and for its own party, what with aiming for growth while making it harder and more expensive to employ people. Similarly, we still have Miliband the Mad driving for Net Zero while the Government plans to approve Heathrow’s third runway – a U-turn on Starmer and Co’s 2018 position – as Adrian Ramsay (Green) pointed out. But then, Ramsay himself is a NIMBY on ‘renewable infrastructure’, as Sir Keir reminded him.
When Will Stone (Lab) boasted of the Panattoni Park development in Swindon, the PM used the chance to mention the new National Wealth Fund’s potential contribution to economic stability and growth. Here, we have another double bind, for ‘no man can serve two masters’: exploiting our pensions for HMG’s projects may well hamper fund performance, which could in turn impact pensioners; still, the latter are by definition not ‘working people’, who ‘don’t have savings’.
The theme of the exchanges between Starmer and Badenoch was education – another field bristling in difficulties. Kemi highlighted the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill’s cap on teachers’ pay and restrictions on hiring talented non-qualified staff; Sir Keir spoke of breakfast clubs and limiting uniform expenses. Kemi said that the Bill was an ‘attack on excellence’, something that did not bother Anthony Crosland when, in 1965, he promised to ‘destroy every f***ing Grammar School in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland.’
Checking on home education was a safeguard against domestic child abuse, claimed the PM, skirting around another relevant issue – that of raising children with a radicalised political or religious agenda. Home education is a vexed area; the right to educate one’s own child ‘otherwise’, in defiance of a creeping State power grab, has become complicated by an influx of people who, in some cases, seem to have some very different values to our own. Now, we are into the culture wars, as well as a political conflict.
As of Monday, the transatlantic ideological divide seems now to be between those who want to level up, versus those determined to level down.
This is an extraordinary animation video about dragonflies. The information about their eyes and brain, the Alien-like grabber used by the nymphs in water!
The world will work better if we try to see things as they are, not as we would like them to be. We have to tackle our tasks conscientiously and fairly, not try to lead the people back to Eden and make the lion lie down with the lamb.
When police and political representatives colluded with and covered-up systematic child sexual exploitation for fear of being seen as racist, the problem grew to a scale beyond calculation. Had the authorities acted early and firmly a huge amount of suffering could have been prevented. Instead the scandal is tempting many people to tar most of the Muslim population here with the same brush, so that community relations are far worse than if responsible parties had acted impartially.
Similarly much of the fire devastation in California could have been headed off by proper attention to basic precautions - clearing away flammable underbrush, ensuring adequate water supplies. This could have been done before (not instead of) winning virtue points for affirmative employment practices and nature conservation projects. First things first.
Perhaps the theme for our time is to reframe political disagreements. They should not be a matter of Left versus Right but of limited, practical and achievable good versus well-meaning fantasy and over-reach.
This theme is everywhere now, even in something as basic as internet search engines.
Take Google for example. If you say things their shadowy ideological teams and computer algorithms don't like, you can have your Blogger account cancelled altogether - sometimes containing many years of content. Or they can find ways to 'shadow ban' you to make you hard to find.
It has got to the point where Google's core function as a data finder has been hampered. Yesterday I sought a funny Spectator piece from 2012 by Melissa Kite about her crazy spaniel Cydney; I put in the names and other key words, in several different ways: nothing. Why? Is it because she's 'right wing'? Yet when I switched to Bing.com - bingo!
Similarly two days earlier I looked for a sexually frank poem by the Middle Scots poet William Dunbar. Too sexy, even when it's half a thousand years old? For again it was Google 0, Bing 1.
It's worrying when the world's leading search engine can't search.
"Google's algorithm updates have been well documented, starting out sporadically with one in 2000 and another in 2002, then becoming increasingly more frequent over the years. In the present climate, hundreds of search algorithm changes are made every year, ranging from minor changes to far-reaching broad core algorithm updates that shake up the search engine results pages (SERPs). By contrast, Bing algorithm changes are rarely spoken about in the SEO community.
"Although Google still dominates the global search market in 2025, Microsoft has seen some incremental gains in recent times. Google retains an 89.73% share of the global market, although this has fallen from 93.47% since February 2023; during the same timeframe, Bing's share has risen from 2.18% up to 3.98%."
Ironically, I found that article without trouble!
Away with grand schemes and attempting to remake humanity by force and propaganda. Let's have openness, humility and mutual respect.
At this week’s PMQs, the Prime Minister called the Conservative Opposition ‘economic vandals and fantasists’ who wanted the benefits of the Budget without saying how they would pay for them. He contrasted their approach with his - making difficult cuts, raising taxes, investing in health, public services and housing with ‘an iron-clad commitment to our fiscal rules.’
We shall see how long that iron bears the weight of reality thundering across the bridge. Starmer mocked Liz Truss for ‘crashing the economy’ but some of the trusses underpinning his own grand construction are buckling already.
That is because key parts are not welded to each other.
For example Labour’s Naushabah Khan highlighted the shortage of staff to teach construction skills to young people; Sir Keir’s solution was another new quango, Skills England, which he linked to the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million new homes.
Are those homes needed? The ONS has predicted an increase in our population of 6.6 million between 2021 and 2036, 92% of which will be down to net immigration. Without that we would see a decline - and perhaps we should.
What we could do with is a program of retrofitting over 3 million interwar houses to make them more energy-efficient, and perhaps dividing many of them into smaller self-contained units. No need to concrete over the green belt and our vital farmland.
But yes, if we play it right we could be entering a golden age for the skilled manual worker, and about time too.
LibDem leader Ed Davey noted the winter flu crisis in hospitals (exacerbated by problems of discharging patients who have no-one to care for them at home) and urged the PM to shorten the three-year timetable for the Casey Commission on social care. Starmer responded by blaming the Conservative Party; his iron refusal to change course ‘disappointed’ Davey.
Scottish Labour’s Kirsteen Sullivan raised the issue of access to NHS dentists north of the border. While sympathising and promising to work with the Scottish Government, Sir Keir could not resist once again attacking the SNP, who he said ‘should be ashamed.’
We need to connect this with his grand plan for UK devolution, which will quango-ise the country with mayors and regional councils, robbing power from Parliament but also from the troublesome people - goodbye district councils. There will be opportunities for corruption as our demos fragments and groups co-ordinate to take control of these new layers of government. It will all end in ‘tiers’.
The Conservatives’ Peter Bedford spoke of Age UK’s difficulties in supporting pensioners who have lost their winter fuel allowance (WFA) while themselves coping with the increase in employer’s national insurance.
Starmer reverted to his familiar strategy, a counterattack on the Tories, which served as a distraction from some more of his stubbornness. He has previously assured David Lammy of his job until the next General Election and as Rachel Reeves came under fire he has promised her the same. Goodness forbid he should change his mind.
Similarly Reeves’ disaster on the WFA and NIC could be fixed, but won’t be. What possessed Labour in taxing the employed as though they were an unhealthy luxury?
A better solution would be to tax wealthy retirees more, never mind what the manifesto said - ‘events, dear boy’. If the 40 per cent income tax threshold was dropped by £1,500 then prosperous retirees - Well-Off Older Persons (‘Woopies’) - would in effect be repaying the £300 WFA that everybody should have. It could be taken further: in Scotland there is an intermediate 21% tax band for those with an income above £25,281; their higher rate band starts at £43,663 (not £52,271 as in the rest of the UK) - and is 42%, not 40% as here. The top rate is also two points higher than in England.
Unlike younger, struggling workers WOOPIES don’t pay NIC or pension contributions, often no longer pay rent or a mortgage or have to feed, clothe and entertain children. If my paying more would help the nation out of a jam, I’d be for it, as long as it didn’t get spaffed away with incompetent management.
The exchanges between Badenoch and Starmer were the usual, what he terms ‘knockabout’, while remaining silent on the elephant in the room. Kemi has commented publicly elsewhere on the need to discriminate among groups of immigrants and their descendants, and some realistic discrimination is long overdue, not just on account of jihadism and r*p* gangs but also on the net economic effect of importing the poorer sort. Perhaps there is a degree of cross-party collusion involved in not gifting political ammo to rising new parties.
Perhaps we will not see radical, beneficial change without a great disaster. The Starmernaut will rumble on until it hits a major national pothole.
Today’s PMQs can be viewed here (starting 12:00); the Hansard transcript is here.
The great boil of UK child abuse has been lanced and has spattered its contents over all three major political parties. Now, said Sir Keir numerous times in this session, is the time for “action”.
What action? Why a Bill, of course: the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, receiving its second reading this afternoon. How dare the Tories introduce a wrecking amendment (requiring a national enquiry into ‘grooming’ gangs) when the Government is so keen to get this sorted fast!
It is not clear why it should be necessary to complete such an enquiry before doing anything to prosecute and punish those who have broken existing laws. But it is clear why a full historic investigation into police and local/national government negligence and collusion would be embarrassing – and not just for Labour.
Political parties have a will to survive, just like living organisms. Self-protection ranks above public service. So when Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) ended PMQs by asking Starmer why the latter, when DPP, had not instigated a prosecution for rape and sexual abuse against Mohamed Fayed, the PM took refuge in proceduralism: “That case never crossed my desk.” No time for a supplementary question as to why not – curtain down and off to the green room, quick!
All the laws and administrative arrangements in the world will not solve problems if there is no will to do so. Let’s look at an existing plan that can help the young but has sometimes failed.
Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) were introduced in 2014 to coordinate the work of professionals in safeguarding and promoting the interests of children. They came into being in response to the slow parental murder in 2000 of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié; yet despite the new arrangements, ten-year-old Sara Sharif was killed in 2023 by her father and stepmother. I was involved from their beginning in putting EHCPs together for some SEND children and, within a couple of years, as the Local Authority’s budget became tight, the educational psychologists (typically the gatekeepers for practical help) seemed to become more of an obstacle than a leg up in the process of assessment.
Now, the proposed new Bill will grant officials more powers to intervene, especially with (allegedly) home-schooled children – but how and why will those powers be used? Will there be some fresh disaster, lessons learned, a line drawn under, a moving-on? A cover-up, a scapegoating? Or effective and consistent action?
Phillips is politically between a rock and a hard place. She did much good work for women and girls as a local councillor and safeguarding them is now her brief as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary; yet in July’s General Election, she was very nearly unseated by an Islamist playing on local Muslims’ feelings about Gaza. Calling for a thorough investigation into the rape gangs might alienate enough of her constituents to see her out of Westminster in due course.
Because of issues not addressed, our systemic problems have grown. Labour thought it could rely on Asian voters, provided it let sleeping dogs lie; now, we see the beginnings of a political separation. Did no-one among the powers-that-have-been since 1997 have any concept of the implications of bringing into this country a culture and religion so different and so vigorous? How much history is taught on a PPE course?
Labour is so last season in political fashion, still pursuing its passion for conflict on the basis of class war. Its real programme is to complete the Blairite project that Peter Hitchens calls Eurocommunism, though in Sir Keir’s case we might term it Bureaucommunism – mutating our Constitution into a cat’s cradle of faux devolutions that will leave the people disempowered. The Mayor of London answers questions ten times annually, but does not get the democratic bullyragging we see in the Commons; that is the future we face elsewhere.
Delegating budgets and power will allow the PM to rise above blame and become more presidential, after the model of France, where the operator at the next level down is traditionally described as a ‘fuse’. So when Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) asked about the withdrawn Winter Fuel Allowance in Scotland, he was told (and I paraphrase) that the SNP had been given the tools and it was for them to get on with the job.
The theme of insulation from the people extends to Labour’s dealings with the EU. Sojan Joseph (Ashford) hooked his question about restoring Ashford’s Eurostar service onto this.
Those who are concerned about the revolutionary assault on democracy should follow what is going on in Switzerland, where their Federal President Viola Amherd has just negotiated a systematic rearrangement of Swiss-EU relations with the EU’s controversial President Ursula von der Leyen. The hundred Lilliputian threads tying Gulliver down will eventually, if the EU succeeds, be replaced by a stout rope. For now, the Schengen demand for free popular movement across borders has been resisted, but voluntary financial contributions to Brussels’ coffers will become compulsory and the general tendency is unmistakable.
The deal has yet to be officially validated and the frequently-exercised Swiss right to a referendum is likely to be employed – certainly, the ‘hard-right’ Swiss People’s Party (SVP) will call for one. Watch that space over the next year or so.
But the sane eye peeping out of the delusional mask of Europe may find its lid drooping, if the people forget their love of liberty.
