Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

An actual decent local news article....
Showing how a chunk of the British population are trash.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/27-people-drowned-and-i-laughed-258352/

The deaths of 27 men, women and children willing to risk everything was the worst Channel tragedy yet, but not everyone saw it that way.

Ed McConnell waded into Facebook's murkiest waters and found a small group pumped full of hate and completely unwilling to engage.

On a chilly November afternoon Baran's fiancé waited with cautious excitement.

Within hours the couple would be reunited, bringing to an end a desperate journey which began more than 3,000 miles away in the Kurdish town of Soran, northern Iraq, and marking the start of a new life in Britain.

Baran, whose full name was Maryam Nuri, dreamed of starting a salon in Portsmouth where partner Karzan Assad works as a barber.

As the 24-year-old and around 30 others were crammed into a flimsy dinghy on the French coast Karzan began intently following her progress on Snapchat's maps feature.

But four hours later she phoned to say the boat was taking on water and they were waiting to be rescued. It would be the couple's last conversation.

Some 70 miles away in Chatham, England, Steve was scrolling through Facebook.

News was breaking of a tragedy which many had been dreading for some time.

Six miles off the coast of Calais a crumpled inflatable was sinking to the sea bed. Baran's lifeless body was one of 27 floating in the icy water.

A KentOnline article about the shipwreck popped up on Steve's timeline. He laughed.

But Steve, who calls me a "jumped up little ****" and tells me to "jog on" when I question him, wasn't alone.

He was one of 96 who chose to react to the news with a laughing emoji, one of several ways Facebook allows users to engage with posts.

KentOnline's Facebook post. The number of dead was originally stated to be more than 30
KentOnline's Facebook post. The number of dead was originally stated to be more than 30
While publishers can switch the comments off after an article is published they have no control over the emojis that appear above them.

Steve's not the only one who tells me to "jog on", Chantal does too but only after informing me she laughed "because our country looks after illegals before our own people!!!"

Ashford mechanic Ronni Pickering – who presumably has chosen a fake name inspired by the red-faced viral internet star – engages for longer.


His willingness to talk about his views on migration was somewhat overshadowed by the bile he spouted.

"No problem... it's a total joke mate," he begins, adding: "Thousands of murders (sic) rapists terrorists coming into our country daily. The government are traitors!!"

But when I confess I am struggling to see how the deaths of 27 people are remotely funny things begin to sour.

"It's great news (they drowned)! You support the ***** probably. **** of (sic). I hope every boat ******* sinks."

I question what's got him to this point.

Those coming are "rapists murders (sic) nonces terrorists and they are robbing our country left right and centre cos they come from **** all and got no morals. Don't like them never will there (sic) scum," he says.

It's an appalling explosion of hate and not backed up by any statistics whatsoever.

I ask him to show me any evidence for his claims. He can't but still tells me to "go away and do my homework".

So I do. For all his talk of murderers and rapists I found not a single news report linking a serious offence to someone who had used the route and very few about any asylum seekers committing offences.

More than 200,000 refugees live in the UK compared to the 3.1 million living in Turkey, which has the most in the world.

Last year, the UK received 36,000 asylum applications, the fifth highest number in Europe. Germany had 122,015 applicants and France 93,475. The UK's intake was 17th in Europe per head of population.

These numbers don't match a vision of a country "under attack" from "invaders" or even economic migrants.

And nor do the numbers – well over 70% of people risking their lives in the Channel are granted asylum, meaning their claims are genuine.

Chatham dad Steve tells me: "The should stay at home and stop ******* coming over here. Or do it through the right procedures the scum bags."

I ask him if the fact 27 people, including women and children, had died had bothered him.

"Not at all mate not my family and not my children," he says, adding another laughing emoji for good measure.

"So would you laugh at anyone dying who you weren't related to?" I ask.

Steve is not happy about this question.

"Nope just them *****," he says.


"They are supposed to seek refuge in the first country they get to not travel through them to come to ours. Because of all the ***** my daughter can't get doctors appointments because there is too many of them here now causing a strain on our NHS. There is veteran's on the streets when there being put up in hotels (sic)."

He tells me to "sort myself out".

But Steve is wrong, asylum seekers do not have to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in.

It's a common misconception fed by political rhetoric about passing through "safe countries" but there is no rule requiring asylum seekers to do this.

Somewhat ironically, given how many of the people I message have been vocal supporters of Brexit in the past, Britain did have more tools at its disposal when it was a member of the EU.

The Dublin Regulations required asylum seekers to register a claim in the first EU country they reached and for the decision of that country to be final.

As for his point about using the right processes, it's the most reasonable thing he says, but the fact of the matter is they barely exist.

As Baron Kerr told the House of Lords last week schemes like the Syrian and Dubs are no longer in place.

Some 3,187 Iranians came in the past 18 months, the largest single group, yet only one got in through the official route.

Kurds, like Baran and many of those who drowned, are among the largest groups to make the crossing. They are also the largest ethnic group without a state on the planet and have fled persecution for decades, often settling in Europe.

Unfortunately, it's too late to tell Steve that because he's told me to jog on again.

'Ronni Pickering' has also blocked me by this point. It's a common theme. Everyone I message who at first was willing to engage would only do so on their terms.

I asked for facts to back up their claims and was met with abuse, silence or more misinformation.

I presented facts and was told they were wrong or simply to "**** off".

One man tells me all they do is "take jobs" and says "most of them that come here are in jail for murder or rape."

When I tell him asylum seekers can't work and ask for more information on his paradoxical second claim he ignores me before eventually saying "**** 'em."

Debating the topic of immigration, and in particular the current system, is hugely important but any hope a reasoned conversation could be had with people who found drowned children funny was in hindsight misguided.

Even if their arguments were sound no amount of evidence is going to justify laughing at an atrocity.

But there is hope among the hatred. For the 96 who clicked the laughing emoji more than 400 responded with outrage.

Comments previously used to be immediately closed on articles such as last week's but now they're left open for people to challenge each other's views, something which happens more often than not and outweighs the blind bigotry.

Reasoning with these people was never going to work, maybe one day education will win but until then perhaps the best approach, to redirect one man's insult, is "**** 'em".

[Sheilbh]

From Slugger O'Toole - this sounds possibly positive if the EU and UK and other groups try to engage with it. There's an opening here:

John Kyle has reminded us all that there is zero appetite for a DUP Lite...
Ian Clarke on November 30, 2021, 10:14 am282 Comments | Readers 3745

In my post last week I stated my view that "of course there's not a great depth of understanding of the protocol among those most vocally opposing it (just as there's no great depth of understanding of it among those most vocally endorsing it)." It was encouraging that there was no real effort in the comments section to refute that view. That's why I was heartened by Dr John Kyle's contribution to The View on Thursday last.

Discussion on the protocol has largely degenerated to the point where it's simply a domestic football for most of those most vocally for or against it. For too many unionist politicians it's yet another way to use a "union in peril" mantra to deflect from how they have led that very union away from a very recent time when it was at its strongest and safest in living memory.

For many republicans it's a means to gloat and goad the broader pro-union population into feelings of insecurity by effectively agreeing with the DUP on the purpose and impact of the protocol. For marginalised loyalist groupings it provides a means to attempt to stay relevant.

For Stephen Farry it ...... no I can't figure that one out either. What they all have in common is a tendency to avoid discussing the actual protocol, rather than use the P word to further their old, tired agenda.

John Kyle's actual words last week were:

    "If we address those serious problems, if we see that there needs to be fundamental change in the Northern Ireland Protocol, then there are also significant opportunities there.

    "Businesses in Northern Ireland will be able to export to the European Union without the regulatory restrictions that are placed on all other businesses in Great Britain.

    "They will also have access to the UK internal market that other businesses in the EU do not have access to, so we are uniquely positioned to take advantage of the UK internal market and the EU market.

    "We are in a unique position that gives us an opportunity that no one else has, and we need to look at ways to exploit that."

This is one of the few occasions we've seen a local politician – albeit a city councillor from a party that currently has no Assembly representation – adopt a genuinely non-binary position on the Protocol. From that perspective alone his intervention is to be welcomed as a starting point for debate.

I don't intend to involve myself in such a debate here as I, as with most of the rest of us, don't feel qualified to debate the intricacies of the trading impact of the Protocol. But as someone who remembers the depth of unionist community unease and antipathy towards the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Hume/Adams, I do not detect anything approaching that sentiment today outside of political unionism.

I certainly don't feel any sense of the always evolving Union being significantly weakened by the Protocol. No one has demonstrated such a weakening in any credible manner.

What I do feel is that Brexit and the myopic view of it by unionism's political leaders is facilitating the more voluble elements of republicanism in creating an illusion that Irish Unity is a realistic prospect in the medium term.

It's unquestionably undermining what were much more mutually fruitful relationship between the Irish Government and its counterparts in Westminster and Stormont. That only suits people in Northern Ireland who want to destabilise NI.

So there is a pro union constituency out there waiting to be spoken for. And it's a large one.

Hence the reason I believe that John Kyle has done us all a huge favour.

He has had the courage to step outside unionism's political comfort zone and opine that there are potential advantages to our economy and community in a revised protocol. For the first time since Brexit changed everything, there is an opportunity for political unionism to get itself off the hook and finally start to put this gaping sore behind us once and for all,

The question is whether any element of political unionism will have the vision and courage to seize the opportunity he has provided to them. The real opportunity is for the UUP. That party NEEDS to grasp this lifeline ahead of May as a chance to put genuine and articulate distance between themselves and the DUP's absolutist position.

Doug Beattie's first reaction was encouraging:

    "Not seeing the issue here. @cllrjohnkyle is saying the protocol needs fundamental change. This is not new. He has given an intelligent, thoughtful analysis including the collapse of Stormont would be bad for unionist. He is right...."

This was followed by an unexpected statement from former MEP Jim Nicholson, but it really focused on the need to retain Stormont and the mistake of hankering after Article 16 rather than specifically addressing how the protocol can be amended in everyone's interests.

The UUP needs to do more than this. There is little to be gained by promoting Jim Nicholson as an elder statesman. Ditto Reg Empey. They were there for all the years of the party's decline. The UUPs potential saving grace is its new leader with good new people around him.

The Assembly election will really kick into gear after Christmas. There is an appetite for the DUP. We all know that. There is also an appetite within the pro union community for a genuine alternative to the DUP. There is no appetite for DUP Lite.

John Kyle incidentally is from the Progressive Unionist Party which isn't in Stormont, but is a pretty fascinating party. It's the only centre-left party in unionism and generally has a working class support base - it's originally from Shankill. But, perhaps because of that working class base, it's also the only unionist party with formal links to loyalist paramilitaries. They've never done great as a democratic political party, but were very important in the peace process.

[alfred russel]

It seems that Prince William has inherited kooky ideas from his father.

Prince William blames African population pressure for wildlife loss

The Duke of Cambridge has renewed his attack on the increasing impact human population is having on Africa's wildlife, despite having been accused of hypocrisy for criticising population growth while expecting his third child.

At the Tusk Conservation Awards last night the duke said: "The increasing pressure on Africa's wildlife and wild spaces as a result of human population presents a huge challenge for conservationists, as it does the world over."

I mean....Yes?
Its crazy how much the population has exploded in places like Nigeria over recent decades.
Though a British royal probably isn't the one who should be spreading this message.... Though the headline take away is a bit knee jerky 'omg racis' considering he clearly says right there its a global problem.

"The increasing pressure on Africa's wildlife and wild spaces as a result of human population presents a huge challenge for conservationists, as it does the world over."

I don't know what else he is saying, but that statement alone doesn't mean he is against population growth, or even criticizing population growth.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah there is a slightly neo-Malthusian school of British environmentalism/conservationism - Prince Charles, David Attenborough, Stanley Johnson. It's where the Green Party comes from here and they had a very strong early focus on "population control".

It does tend to blame poor people who aren't white which.... yeah

[Sheilbh]

On leveling up - probably one of the most important city bosses of the post-war era is stepping down after 25 years in charge of Manchester City Council:

Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
Significant moment in local & indeed national politics - leader of Manchester City Council, Sir Richard Leese, stands down after a quarter of a century, which started with the IRA bomb of the Arndale centre, encompassed Commonwealth Games, transformation of City centre...
What has happened in Manchester in that time is of profound national relevance, though rarely seen to be the case...

Eg You can't really talk about "levelling up" as some sort of new phenomenon, without examining what happened in major cities, led by Manchester since 1990s...
In Sir Richard's case, it starts with a fundamental piece of strategic opportunism, helped by architect Ian Simpson. The bomb destroyed a chunk of the Arndale centre... instead of rebuilding it, they identified that bit of terrible urban planning as a block on investment for N MCR
Another ex of some wily quick thinking was when Gordon Brown pulled the plug on the Manchester super casino, the anchor of regeneration plans in east Manchester...instead the area was repackaged along with stadium for massive investment in MCFC & area by Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth
Sir Richard proved a wily operator under coalition Government, forging an alliance between his virtual one party city state and then Chancellor @george_osborne - never quite denying the suggestion of a rather direct in person intervention when Ed Balls flirted with canning HS2
There are obvious questions about the extent to which this strategy, of a highly strategic central leadership, deploying public funding, the private sector, and sovereign wealth capital, is in fact the model the whole country has shifted towards...
Also questions about the extent to which boosting one central city enough to create a magnet for global capital in to shiny regeneration efforts, creates a sustainable economic model for all (eg homelessness rates) and then also for the wider region (left behind towns)...
Reflecting back on when I mainly covered politics 2014-2019 - notable how unengaged Labour leaderships seemed with MCR transformation -even when, eg for EdM, seemed to encapsulate precisely what he was trying to communicate - strategic state using private sector to change lives
reflects significant difference between UK & other countries - pathway to national political leadership, typically doesn't run through a record at a local or regional level. Perhaps that in turn is reflection on centralisation of media, political power, borrowing power in London
Last point -in upcoming Levelling Up white paper it will be interesting to see if there's an attempt to suggest now is the first time such attempts to rebalance Britain's economic geography have been tried, or instead it analyses what has happened over past 25 years in big cities
Many questions arise - perhaps its time for some sort of podcast! In the meantime happy retirement to @SirRichardLeese
.

And I particularly enjoyed seeing his reaction in the City end at the Etihad in 2012 when Van Persie scored in injury time...

Also important in his story was the way that he basically created structures for a "Greater Manchester" when one didn't exist. It helped that all of those councils are basically Labour one party states, but he convened all the neighbouring council leaders to work toegether on coordinated plans before the creation of Metro-Mayors he was kind of an unofficial Metro-Mayor of Greater Manchester.

And interesting that he didn't go for that job which has lots of convening, cajoling, representing powers but not much in terms of decision making - but instead stayed as leader of the City Council which has more.

[Josquius]

It's curious Manchester manages this so well. Quite a contrast to Tyne and Wear where petty squabbles between the councils are a constant in holding us back.
It doesn't help that we are historically bi-polar with Sunderland and Newcastle and football rivalries keep hurting into people's real world views but even beyond that you've idiocy like gateshead refusing involvment in the metro mayor which makes the whole thing pointless.
They're managing at juggling a lot more in Manchester. It's surprising there isn't at least one or two rebelling and refusing to be involved.

[Sheilbh]

I think a lot is down to Leese because it's similar in Merseyside where you have certain councils (naming no names) who used to be in Cheshire and don't want to be associated with Liverpool. While he got buy-in from everyone and I think was able to make the (true) argument that Oldham and Bury would benefit from a richer, more successful Manchester.

Similarly I find it astonishing that he was able to operate for 25 years from 1996 and high Blairism to 2021 through Corbyn and now back to a more centre left position. My understanding is that while most of the the councils in Manchester are Labour, they reflect the full run of Labour politics so there are some that are very Blairite and some that are very Corbynite. Again from a Liverpool perspective it's mindblowing because factional politics is what the Liverpool Labour Party does.

[Sheilbh]

It's still just starting/rumbling but I think the story about Johnson having Christmas parties last year at Number 10 in breach of covid rules could be very bad for him if they get a bit more firmed up.

From the Guardian Liveblog on morning radio:

Freeman, the science minister, said that he did not know if a Christmas party was held in Downing Street - but that all the guidance was followed. Asked by Justin Webb on the Today programme if there was a party, Freeman replied: "I've no idea. I wasn't there." But he went on: "But I'm told by those who were that all the guidance was observed." When it was put to him that, if the guidance was followed, then there can't have been a party, be because they weren't allowed, he replied: "I can't say, I wasn't there." When Webb tried again, Freeman just gave the same answer. But he did say that he had "checked" and that he had been told by people who were there that "all the guidance was followed". As the Telegraph's Cat Neilan points out, there was an obvious hole in Freeman's argument.

CatNeilan
@CatNeilan
Amazing mental gymnastics from George Freeman about last year's Xmas party, who has spoken to people who "were there" and established "all rules were followed", but not whether the party took place

Obviously it's still at early stages with this story - the press are still trying to confirm if there was a party. But the thing that always pisses off British voters is "it's one rule for them" and I cancelled Christmas events with family, I know other people who did the same and I imagine there will be absolute fury if there was a party in Downing Street. I could be wrong - it happens plenty.

Separately Labour had a re-shuffle which seemed chaotic but generally looks for the first time, possibly since Labour were in government, like they have a pretty good frontbench. It is definitely a move to the centre but also it just looks like people who are generally suited to their new roles, most of them are pretty good at the media, people who've performed well have been promoted and others moved on.

As a sign of just how far Labour went during Corbyn it means Nia Griffith is off the front bench for the first time in years. She isn't actually very centrist and is very much in the Soft Left of the party but apparently Corbyn's aides nicknamed her "NATO Nia" because she disagreed with Corbyn's approach to the Salisbury/Skripal murder (he wanted to send a sample to Moscow so they could confirm whether or not they'd killed Skripal) and didn't support unilateral disarmament or renegotiating (leaving) NATO

[Richard Hakluyt]

I wasn't at the party either, if there was a party, but I can confirm that all the rules were followed at the party, if it happened 

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally. Examples of why I don't think we'll end up with a US free trade deal and the deregulatory vision of Brexit is probably doomed - we're still fundamentally European. Couple of interesting stories on this where the UK is taking more action than the EU, or as one article puts it: "You could forgive Brits for feeling smug. Predictably, they are."

First tech regulation - the Competition and Markets Authority here is going to require Facebook to unwind their acquisition of Giphy and now has a legal framework for dealning with "kill acquisitions" (something the EU is looking at how to incorporate). European countries are also starting to look at the UK's Digital Regulation Cooperation Framework (which has its own staff but is a structure for the privacy, competition, media and financial regulators to coordinate regulation of the digital sector) as an interesting model:
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-big-tech-facebook-giphy-eu-brussels-digital/

It's not fully developed yet and the regulators need a lot more legal support (as in lawyers/money for barristers not legislation) so they can be even more robust enforcers, but as in the Children's Code I think it's an interesting and developing area of divergence. The ICO (Information Commissioner's Office - the UK privacy regulator) have tried to levy a couple of very big fines but everything was appealed, there were technical/procedural flaws in their approach and they ended up being cut significantly. I've been at events and asked the Commissioner who has said that the biggest challenge is that big companies have deep enough pockets to have a QC fighting every move the ICO makes.

Relatedly and slightly unexpectedly how UK trade went woke. The UK's new trade deals so far cover trade but also environemnetal protections, human, labour, gender and animal rights provisions and safeguards for indigenous communities as standard - in addition (not mentioned in the article) trade deals will be suspended if Parliament votes a resolution that there is a genocide in a country:
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-trade-went-woke/

Interesting comment on this is that the UK civil service apparently spent a lot of time looking at what went wrong with TTIP - apparently Liz Truss implemented this, not because she's of an activist bent, but because she took the view that trade deals need to be treated like campaigns and win public support and the public care about all of that stuff. Without public and political support, in her view, you get a TTIP situation.

This is attracting criticism from the ultra-free trade/deregulator wing of the Tory Party like Dan Hannan, but also former Lib Dem leader Vince Cable who says trade deals should just deal with technical trade issues. Unrelatedly I believe that since Vince Cable left the Commons he now works as a consultant for a commodities trading firm with a lot of interests in countries like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.

[Zanza]

Which actually implemented trade deal "went woke"? The not implemented Australia FTA, which was hailed as the biggest post-Brexit FTA, was criticized because it did not contain anything on environmental or climate protection due to Australia's government climate change denial.

Also the biggest, most important trade deal the UK signed was and will always be the TCA. Truss was not involved and the deal is certainly much less "woke" than Britain's previous membership in the EEA.

In general, a "woke" trade deal clashes with the dogma of sovereignty as pushed by Johnson/Frost as it binds the UK to external rules.

[Sheilbh]

Which actually implemented trade deal "went woke"? The not implemented Australia FTA, which was hailed as the biggest post-Brexit FTA, was criticized because it did not contain anything on environmental or climate protection due to Australia's government climate change denial.

The Australia trade deal did include provisions on climate - there's an entire chapter on the environment and basically re-affirm commitments under other multilateral agreements, especially Paris. They weren't as robust as activists wanted largely because it acknowledges that each government will choose their own policies to meet their own commitments.

Also the biggest, most important trade deal the UK signed was and will always be the TCA. Truss was not involved and the deal is certainly much less "woke" than Britain's previous membership in the EEA.

No that wasn't her remit and wasn't negotiated as just a free trade deal by her (then) department.

Of course it's less good than what went before - but that's not coming back. So what matters is what comes next and this is an interesting trend, which goes against common predictions about Brexit and reinforces my general view that the policies that will - to nick Starmer's phrase - make Brexit work and the policies that have broad political support are the opposite of what the free trade/deregulation Leave campaigners wanted. I think that's going to be a trend, and I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing some buyer's remorse from that wing of Vote Leave.

In general, a "woke" trade deal clashes with the dogma of sovereignty as pushed by Johnson/Frost as it binds the UK to external rules.

Maybe that analysis/framework for understanding everything the UK does is flawed?

[Zanza]

The TCA is and always will be the most important trade agreement of the UK. No matter if you join CPTPP or conclude an Australia FTA or even an US FTA. Gravity of trade will ensure that.

Actual policy of UKG on this most important trade agreement is not "woke" as you admit yourself, but rather deeply regressive. This agreement is deeply influenced by the Johnson/Frost dogma on sovereignty, so it is a relevant framework when discussing Britain's trade policy. Absolute sovereignity, not shared political aspirations on woke topics, determines UKG actions to the point a trade war was recently considered as realistic policy.

The Politico article you cited on "woke" trade deals points out aspirations the UK should have on its trade deals. Sounds all nice  but so far zero actual implementation. As you say, the Australia deal does not go beyond the smallest global consensus that is the Paris climate accords. No progress at all. Let's see how woke a trade agreement with the GCC will be...

[Sheilbh]

The TCA is and always will be the most important trade agreement of the UK. No matter if you join CPTPP or conclude an Australia FTA or even an US FTA. Gravity of trade will ensure that.

Sure I don't think anyone's disputing that the EU will be our most important trading partner, but it was also always about more than trade and negotiated by Number 10 - rightly - not the Department for International Trade.

Actual policy of UKG on this most important trade agreement is not "woke" as you admit yourself, but rather deeply regressive. This agreement is deeply influenced by the Johnson/Frost dogma on sovereignty, so it is a relevant framework when discussing Britain's trade policy. Absolute sovereignity, not shared political aspirations on woke topics, determines UKG actions to the point a trade war was recently considered as realistic policy.

I don't really see its relevance to any other area. The deal you have with the EU after leaving the EU is always going to be pretty sui generis, not least because the EU is. I also don't see what's particularly regressive about it.

The Politico article you cited on "woke" trade deals points out aspirations the UK should have on its trade deals. Sounds all nice  but so far zero actual implementation. As you say, the Australia deal does not go beyond the smallest global consensus that is the Paris climate accords. No progress at all. Let's see how woke a trade agreement with the GCC will be...

Fair - and I think there's a huge risk that explodes politically for the government and we end up not having one. It might be small enough not to attract much attention - but I don't think we'll ever be likely to have a FTA with, say, China or the US or India for similar reasons. I think they're too politically challenging.

Separately Old Bexley and Sidcup byelection basically matches the national polls. I thought the Tories would do better here because this byelection was caused by the death of a popular local MP rather than, say, a scandal. It's a seat that's always been Tory and they normally win with over 60% of the vote so an upset was always pretty unlikely. It's not Blue Wall territory (so not entirely surprising that the leader of the Rejoin EU party got 150 votes - they really need to look at entryism). Obviously turnout's very low, but it's the best result for Labour in this seat since 2001 which doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.

[Sheilbh]

Incredible detail in latest Times article about Starmer's re-shuffle as part of his general shift to try and win back support and realising how big a job it is (which he may not have clocked as a London MP who is a well-paid lawyer), from Labour staffers:

For example, they told me that during the run-up to the Hartlepool by-election when polling in The Times revealed Labour were not likely to win the seat, Starmer entered the room livid saying: "Everyone hates us, everyone hates us, why do they hate us? Why won't anyone tell me anything?"

It could, sadly, be Labour's slogan

(Though I think things are getting better and am more optimistic but getting rid of a government with an 80 seat majority feels likely to take at least two elections...)