Hi Bear, as I said in my reply to you on Bluesky, I feel that too. Farage and Tice have been noticeably more defensive, and much angrier at being asked reasonable questions by journalists. This is epitomised by the "none of your business" responses to questions about the £5m b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶, sorry, gift. People are beginning to see them for what they really are and they'll soon be left with support only from their cult-members who just 'believe'. Of the Reform public figures, I think only the thicko racists 30p and Pochin and the smug, self-satisfied, arrogant and *unelected* Yusuf thinks that all is well with Reform Ltd. This is my fervent hope and increasingly, my belief, FWIW.
As always, Bear, well written and cogently argued. It will be interesting to see what approach the press barons take to Burnham. At some point, someone needs to take them on. The chance offered by Leveson was missed, squandered, spaffed up the wall. I wonder if another chance will present itself.
And on a minor point of passionate pedantic perusal, whilst I appreciate your obsession with all things ursine, it is barely, not bearly!
I too had a burst of optimism and I'm really sorry to be an Eyeore. But I've been forced into a radical rethink.
Outside of Novara Media, Zeteo and a few other media platforms, we are seeing a wall of silence from the political community on Burnham's membership of Labour Friends of Israel, his tolerance of their long-standing lobbying role in UK politics, his (therefore unsurprising) refusal to call Gaza a genocide, his silence on the UK's continuing production of arms and military intelligence to Israel, his likely appointment of ex-LFoI Chair, Purnell, and his seeming acceptance of Mahmood's inhumane immigration policy changes.
It's fine to be 'a bit left and right' - if it works. I'm a pragmatist. But Burnham's moral compass looks absent. My concern is that the progressive community is so hell-bent on acquiring PR, rejoining, devolution, cross-party collaboration, and all the other sweeties they think Burnham will offer, that they're turning a blind eye to this moral vacuum at the centre of his thinking. This is unconscionable.
For those who think it's ok (geopolitically, and in the interests of 'compromise') to ignore our leader's stance on the Gaza genocide, then just run the sentence 'ignore the party's tacit endorsement of x so we can obtain the y policies we want' where x = not genocide but something else equally unconscionable like rape or paedophilia. It's a 'no'.
Whatever your views on Netanyahu, Burnham's stance is also strategically stupid - the majority of voters who deserted Labour for the Greens did so over Gaza. His 'collusion with Israel through omission' is not going to win these voters back. Nor is a disingenuous, performative U turn on this issue further down the line once the polling reveals the damage it's doing. The ultimate consequence of Burnham, like his predecessors, fudging and fence-sitting on these critical moral issues, will be a major split in the left voting block and a red carpet for Farage to No 10.
Please do not respond by rolling out that tired but distasteful mantra "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. This principle is fine in contexts where it makes sense to compromise to get certain benefits. But it's being used way too liberally to blur essential red lines and make those with moral backbone sound like militant purists. As already noted, where x stands for rape or paedophilia then, morally we cannot argue that 'we should tolerate imperfections like x in order achieve some other good'. Ditto if x = the deliberate industrial scale slaughter of innocent people.
Burnham has to demand that the UK stops supplying Israel with military equipment and intelligence, also that all Labour MPs quit their membership of LFoI and stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by Israel's lobbying interests, that peaceful protesters about Gaza must be released from jail, and he should acknowledge openly and honestly, that Netanyahu's actions constitute genocide, or, at the very least, war crimes.
Until I've seen all this from Burnham, I'm neither optimistic nor willing to support him.
Interestingly a recent poll apparently found that lots of reform voters like Burnham's ideas on re-nationalisation - hardly a rightwing platform, is it?
This idea could have serious legs, if, as you say, it’s done well. The scrutiny is key to stop it becoming just the outsourcing of corruption. And I don’t think Saint Andy of Burnham is the messiah at all. There are worrying signs that he’s quite prepared to throw the vulnerable (trans people, asylum seekers, etc.) under a bus to satisfy the usual shrill voices, and his cosying up to the pro-Israel lobby, and his appointment of James Purcell as his Chief of Staff are additional concerns. But at least he’s better looking than Starmer so there’s that.
On the point of Farage - I saw some clips of him being asked and I was astonished at his responses. Surely he could have guessed that these kind of questions would come up and rehearsed some sensible answers in advance? He sounded utterly unprepared and he should not have been. He's been around for long enough to anticipate the questions and he's got enough resources in the form of aides and advisors, who could have helped him prepare. Calling it cringeworthy would have been kind.
Yeah well, if you see Britain is in a better place after being sold off piecemeal to BlackRock et al, the NHS being gifted to Labour private health donors and its data to Palantir, and the growing number of Special Economic Zones set up to bypass laws, regulations and taxes, then Labour and Burnham probably do look OK to you. For those of us who believe in taxing the rich, including the global technocracies and returning governance to the common weal, Burnham's more of the same shit under a more "progressive" guise with militarisation up top of the list
Hi Bear, as I said in my reply to you on Bluesky, I feel that too. Farage and Tice have been noticeably more defensive, and much angrier at being asked reasonable questions by journalists. This is epitomised by the "none of your business" responses to questions about the £5m b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶, sorry, gift. People are beginning to see them for what they really are and they'll soon be left with support only from their cult-members who just 'believe'. Of the Reform public figures, I think only the thicko racists 30p and Pochin and the smug, self-satisfied, arrogant and *unelected* Yusuf thinks that all is well with Reform Ltd. This is my fervent hope and increasingly, my belief, FWIW.
As always, Bear, well written and cogently argued. It will be interesting to see what approach the press barons take to Burnham. At some point, someone needs to take them on. The chance offered by Leveson was missed, squandered, spaffed up the wall. I wonder if another chance will present itself.
And on a minor point of passionate pedantic perusal, whilst I appreciate your obsession with all things ursine, it is barely, not bearly!
Great to see the toad faced grifter squirm, his true rancid snivelling colours are coming out for us all to see.
I too had a burst of optimism and I'm really sorry to be an Eyeore. But I've been forced into a radical rethink.
Outside of Novara Media, Zeteo and a few other media platforms, we are seeing a wall of silence from the political community on Burnham's membership of Labour Friends of Israel, his tolerance of their long-standing lobbying role in UK politics, his (therefore unsurprising) refusal to call Gaza a genocide, his silence on the UK's continuing production of arms and military intelligence to Israel, his likely appointment of ex-LFoI Chair, Purnell, and his seeming acceptance of Mahmood's inhumane immigration policy changes.
It's fine to be 'a bit left and right' - if it works. I'm a pragmatist. But Burnham's moral compass looks absent. My concern is that the progressive community is so hell-bent on acquiring PR, rejoining, devolution, cross-party collaboration, and all the other sweeties they think Burnham will offer, that they're turning a blind eye to this moral vacuum at the centre of his thinking. This is unconscionable.
For those who think it's ok (geopolitically, and in the interests of 'compromise') to ignore our leader's stance on the Gaza genocide, then just run the sentence 'ignore the party's tacit endorsement of x so we can obtain the y policies we want' where x = not genocide but something else equally unconscionable like rape or paedophilia. It's a 'no'.
Whatever your views on Netanyahu, Burnham's stance is also strategically stupid - the majority of voters who deserted Labour for the Greens did so over Gaza. His 'collusion with Israel through omission' is not going to win these voters back. Nor is a disingenuous, performative U turn on this issue further down the line once the polling reveals the damage it's doing. The ultimate consequence of Burnham, like his predecessors, fudging and fence-sitting on these critical moral issues, will be a major split in the left voting block and a red carpet for Farage to No 10.
Please do not respond by rolling out that tired but distasteful mantra "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. This principle is fine in contexts where it makes sense to compromise to get certain benefits. But it's being used way too liberally to blur essential red lines and make those with moral backbone sound like militant purists. As already noted, where x stands for rape or paedophilia then, morally we cannot argue that 'we should tolerate imperfections like x in order achieve some other good'. Ditto if x = the deliberate industrial scale slaughter of innocent people.
Burnham has to demand that the UK stops supplying Israel with military equipment and intelligence, also that all Labour MPs quit their membership of LFoI and stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by Israel's lobbying interests, that peaceful protesters about Gaza must be released from jail, and he should acknowledge openly and honestly, that Netanyahu's actions constitute genocide, or, at the very least, war crimes.
Until I've seen all this from Burnham, I'm neither optimistic nor willing to support him.
Totally agree!
spot on - lovey to see Farage getting toasted.
Interestingly a recent poll apparently found that lots of reform voters like Burnham's ideas on re-nationalisation - hardly a rightwing platform, is it?
This idea could have serious legs, if, as you say, it’s done well. The scrutiny is key to stop it becoming just the outsourcing of corruption. And I don’t think Saint Andy of Burnham is the messiah at all. There are worrying signs that he’s quite prepared to throw the vulnerable (trans people, asylum seekers, etc.) under a bus to satisfy the usual shrill voices, and his cosying up to the pro-Israel lobby, and his appointment of James Purcell as his Chief of Staff are additional concerns. But at least he’s better looking than Starmer so there’s that.
People will forgive many things except hypocrisy and humiliation.
Farage has brazenly flaunted the first, and exposed his colleagues and grassroots supporters to the second.
Even if he now donates that £5m to charity, he continues to face questions on how much more there is, and whether it is “encrypto-ed”.
It’s a shame to see a good man done down. Except that’s not what we are seeing.
On the point of Farage - I saw some clips of him being asked and I was astonished at his responses. Surely he could have guessed that these kind of questions would come up and rehearsed some sensible answers in advance? He sounded utterly unprepared and he should not have been. He's been around for long enough to anticipate the questions and he's got enough resources in the form of aides and advisors, who could have helped him prepare. Calling it cringeworthy would have been kind.
Yeah well, if you see Britain is in a better place after being sold off piecemeal to BlackRock et al, the NHS being gifted to Labour private health donors and its data to Palantir, and the growing number of Special Economic Zones set up to bypass laws, regulations and taxes, then Labour and Burnham probably do look OK to you. For those of us who believe in taxing the rich, including the global technocracies and returning governance to the common weal, Burnham's more of the same shit under a more "progressive" guise with militarisation up top of the list
He’s a Labour friend of the genocidal squat on Palestinian soil so a friend of genocide. Just like Farage