Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Ghost; now I know this is aftertiming ( sorry) but, for some reason although I prefer NH racing I usually do better betting on the flat. I had several winners today including your first few. Nothing clever in that because I have lots of 3 pence ew bets, several in some races. But I then backed the last horse as thought that it would be bad luck if I didn’t. It usually works the other way in that I don’t want to curse people with my selections but I had to risk it this time. So chuffed for you!
Hills were offering 40/1 for Item to win today and in the Derby. Wish I’d taken them up on it.
He’s in a marginal seat and could lose it at the next election. He has links with private health companies and is Mandelsons protege. His ability as a good communicator has gone to his head imo.
I must admit to seeing a video of him in parliament on Facebook, having rather forgotten about him since he stopped being leader, and, now he’s much older thought he had the ministerial look about him that Michael Heseltine had when I saw him at a people’s vote meeting. Maybe it’s because, like Heseltine, he looked quite tall and imposing. He’s also ( I think) one of the few MP’s that Starmer listens to.
From facebook
With thanks to Andy Fitchet
A long read on my thoughts about the current speculation about Keir’s future.
Keir Starmer is not perfect. No Labour leader ever has been. But if there is one thing British politics does with astonishing consistency, it is this: it builds Labour leaders up just high enough to tear them to pieces the moment they become a genuine threat to the status quo.
We saw it with Gordon Brown. History has already begun rehabilitating Brown, but during his premiership he was caricatured relentlessly — awkward, gloomy, indecisive, “unelected,” somehow both too intellectual and not political enough. Yet Brown led Britain through the global financial crisis with a seriousness and competence that many economists now acknowledge prevented catastrophe. The very people who mocked him later quietly admitted he had been right.
Ed Miliband was ridiculed for eating a bacon sandwich.
Jeremy Corbyn was treated as an existential threat to civilisation itself.
And now Keir Starmer, despite being a cautious centrist by almost any historical Labour standard, is being denounced simultaneously as authoritarian, weak, radical, conservative, elitist and socialist depending on which newspaper one happens to open.
There is something deeply unhealthy about this cycle. Britain has become addicted to permanent outrage politics. We no longer seem capable of allowing governments — particularly Labour governments — to govern without treating every disagreement, every compromise, every awkward interview as evidence of total collapse.
And yet, beneath the noise, there is a government actually doing things.
This Labour government inherited a country battered by fourteen years of instability: collapsing public trust, crumbling infrastructure, stagnant wages, NHS waiting lists, local councils on the edge of bankruptcy, rivers full of sewage, schools literally unsafe because of concrete decay, and an economy that seemed permanently stuck between drift and decline.
And all this after a Conservative period that gave us not stability but chaos.
From 1979 to 2007 Britain had just three Prime Ministers: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Tony Blair. Agree or disagree with them politically, that was an era of relative governmental continuity.
Now look at the present madness. Since 2016 Britain has lurched from David Cameron to Theresa May to Boris Johnson to Liz Truss to Rishi Sunak — and if the rumours and plotting continue, we may genuinely end up talking about five Prime Ministers in five years across this political era. That is not healthy democracy. That is systemic instability.
The Conservatives lectured Britain for years about competence and seriousness while cycling through leaders like a reality television programme. One Prime Minister crashed the economy with a mini-budget. Another became synonymous with scandal and dishonesty. Another resigned after gambling on a referendum they barely understood.
Against that backdrop, Starmer’s greatest crime often seems to be that he is… normal.
Calmness now looks suspicious to a political culture addicted to spectacle.
And despite governing in brutally difficult economic conditions, Labour has already begun to shift the tone and direction of the country. Workers’ rights reforms. Greater investment into green energy and infrastructure. Attempts to rebuild relationships with Europe after years of performative hostility. Movement on NHS waiting lists. Action on housing and planning. An industrial strategy that at least recognises Britain needs to produce and build again rather than simply speculate and outsource.
None of this is revolutionary. But perhaps that is precisely the point.
After years of ideological drama and governmental collapse, competence is beginning to look radical.
There is also something profoundly unfair in the expectation placed upon Labour governments. Conservatives are often judged by intentions; Labour is judged by perfection. Tory failure becomes unfortunate reality. Labour failure becomes moral collapse. Conservative U-turns are pragmatism; Labour compromise is betrayal.
Starmer is trying to govern a fractured country in an age where social media rewards fury over patience, purity over progress, and outrage over realism. Every decision alienates somebody because politics now demands impossible ideological totality.
But government is not protest. It is not performance. It is the difficult, compromised, frustrating work of actually running a country.
And perhaps that is what unsettles some commentators most about Starmer. He does not fit the easy caricature. He is not a revolutionary firebrand nor a Thatcherite ideologue. He is a lawyerly, methodical social democrat trying to stabilise a country that has spent nearly a decade politically disintegrating.
And this is precisely why the current political moment matters so much.
Look at the rhetoric emerging from Reform during local election campaigns. Again and again, the message is not simply “vote for us locally” but “get rid of Keir Starmer.” The entire movement feeds off permanent instability, permanent grievance, permanent anger. It thrives when people stop believing democratic institutions can ever work.
But we cannot simply hand them what they want.
Because if every government is torn down within months, if every Prime Minister becomes politically disposable before policies have time to work, then politics itself becomes impossible. Democracy turns into an endless carousel of rage and reaction where no long-term thinking survives.
There is a profound irony here. The same political forces that helped create years of chaos now present themselves as the answer to chaos. The same voices that cheered on division, culture wars and anti-political fury now ask to be trusted as the guardians of stability.
Britain cannot keep governing like this.
A serious country cannot replace leaders every time opinion polls wobble or headlines become difficult. It cannot endlessly confuse turbulence with transformation. It cannot keep rewarding those who profit from public cynicism while punishing those attempting the slow, imperfect work of rebuilding institutions.
That does not mean Labour should avoid scrutiny. Far from it. Democracy requires scrutiny. But scrutiny is different from sabotage.
The truth is that much of the hostility towards Starmer says less about Starmer himself and more about a political culture that is understandably impatient for change but one that can’t seem to get its head around the fact that it takes longer than 22 months to turn around a failing charity, council or football club, let alone turn around a country where every single public service was on its knees.So Farage wasn’t there for the state opening of parliament because he went to a Republican convention in America. Why isn’t this on the front page of every newspaper? What do his ‘patriotic’ supporters think of that?
I wonder if some of the news media are now backtracking because they realise that the removal of Keir Starmer will be bad for the country and the economy.
I think Starmer and the King work very well together in the way that Keir works well and seems to have the respect of other world leaders ( even handling Trump pretty well imo). Maybe the King will smooth things over in the Labour party in the way that he dealt with the orange one across the pond.
A local MP who praised Starmer in parliament a couple of weeks ago and whose city has just been given millions by the government to develop the place has now called for Starmer to go.Thankfully I seem to have got this wrong and all of my local MPs are backing the PM. Can only put it down to the fact that I’ve been losing sleep over all this….
And who is going to gain from all this? Labour will be like rats in a sack now. Just like the last government.
It’s also payrolled by a foreign bitcoin millionaire I believe. Who paid Farage to reconsider leaving politics.
I’ve written to Ms West and told her what I think of her. If Starmer goes Farage will claim it as a personal victory, having campaigned during the council elections to get rid of him. He’s playing Labour like a fiddle. And this from someone who, if he were PM, we would be at war with Iran now.
Probably the last Grand National winner that I got from studying the form other than pin sticking so I had a fondness first him. It’s good that he had a long’ish retirement because I think he sustained an injury in his last race. RIP
I’m still finding myself wistfully thinking back to the old school Conservative governments that I would never have voted for but would give anything to see in government now.
