Armchair politics


Guardian not taking liberties here, not at all

Sub heading

main text


Also from the same dodgy Graun article:

The aggressive language and tone of Rudd’s approach to immigration enforcement emerged after the home secretary attempted to blame officials in her own department for the Windrush scandal in which it emerged up to 50,000 mostly Commonwealth migrants were facing possible deportation despite having lived in Britain for decades.


Yes, it also handily conflates the two as the Windrush scandal is currently news du jour.

All I’m saying is the Guardian is pandering to it’s readership which is something all papers do, including the Mail, Times etc. etc.

It does pay to be critical though.



Why must you record my phone calls?
Are you planning a bootleg LP?




I saw a good analysis of R-M recently where someone (Chris Patten?) said they had known him as a young fogey adolescent but that was the end of his development and he’s the same person now.

I’d like to see a journo ask him his opinion on the Alfie Evans case. Presumably he’d side with the Pope.


He’s a pretty hardcore Catholic. Both morally on subjects like abortion, and practically in acquiring vast amounts of wealth at the expense of the poor.





I forgot to post this yesterday :joy::joy::joy:


I don’t often like Paul Waugh’s daily piece on the Huffington Post site, but today he did ask a really relevant question:

Just what does it take to get the boot as a Cabinet Minister at the moment?

Being misleading about porn is a sackable offence, but endangering a British citizen in Iran is not. A lack of candour about trips to Israel gets you the bullet, but ruining the lives of the Windrush generation doesn’t.

Waugh puts it down to the fact that May can’t reshuffle her cabinet following the last clusterfuck. More to the point she can’t have Rudd (a remainer) out of cabinet, stalking May for the PM job (although Rudd must have ruined any chance she had in covering for May this week).


I’m afraid that, flakey though Rudd is, she may actually be the best of a dreadfully bad lot. Who else would you give the job to ? The alternatives are either even less capable (e.g. Truss) or simply unhinged (Gove, anyone ?).



For a weak Prime Minister with no majority May has been remarkably resilient.

Although the fact that she is still PM may say more about the opposition than it does about her.


No good reason for her keeping her job


Pretty much the entire House is an assemblage of fucknuggetry.


Except that she’s a Remainer and a potential threat to the leadership (although that ship may have sailed) and Maybot rules by “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”.


Then you’re in the position of Trump though - sack the incumbents in the State Dept (happens automatically in the US of course) and then simply leave the positions vacant. The next time you need someone who actually knows where Namibia is though you might wish you’d filled the post …