I could see that for the Haldane Society stuff, and even for being a greenish, civil-libertarian Labour left type. Pabloite ecosocialism is a weird swerve, though.

Including the chapter heading?

Whoever it is, Keir Starmer will be furious when he finds out.

And his involvement in the McLibel case – which was a classic example of "hotshot lawyer with radical past does pro bono for the cause" – was in the early 00s, when he was 40-odd. He was a radical guy... right up to when he wasn't.

The whole "teenage politics"/"student leftism" angle is overplayed. Starmer *was* a teenage leftist, but he was a much more serious adult leftist! He was involved with the IRMT* till the late 80s, and in the Haldane Society at committee level for another decade.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...

Screenshot from a thread on X, from 26th March: Labour's Karl Turner alleges that Morgan McSweeney is "still running the job" in the background, and that several MPs are "very angry" about the situation.

Really? Huge if true, genuinely.

"Yeah, the autoroute's been blocked all day, and now someone's burning the President in effigy, but I wouldn't call it a *grave* disruption. Farmers, you know? What can you do?"

The French definition replaces 'intimidating the public' with 'gravely disrupting public order', omits the 'influencing the government' element and drops the 'goal' criterion altogether.

I like the flexibility of 'gravely disrupting public order', too; lots of scope for handwaving.

Interesting. Our very baggy three-part definition goes:
1. [any one of a whole series of specified actions]
2. intended to terrorise people or influence the government
3. with a political, religious or ideological goal

I hope you replied, "...Not!" That'll learn him.

Who is this person and what has she done with Kemi Badenoch? The real Badenoch would be asking a question on a different topic that Starmer had already answered by now.

You do not 'got to hand it to' etc, but this is wince-inducing stuff - the last Q especially.

There seem to be an awful lot more type-1 people in politics than you'd expect in the general population, and a lot fewer type-3; it's good to hear that EdM was one of the latter.

Starmer, of course, is type 2 - the kind of superficially risk-averse person who actually just wants a quiet life.

1. Sounds good to me! Never a dull moment with the Prince of Darkness!
2. Oh, bugger. That sounds like a terrible idea, but what's he going to do if we don't?
3. What's a polite way of saying 'Fuck, no!'

I didn't hear this at the time, but it's believable (and a great line).

There are, perhaps, three reactions one can reasonably have to being asked about employing Peter Mandelson:

"Anyone who entered the country illegally" - in other words, the only people permitted to claim asylum will be those who don't need it, because they've got a right to enter the country. They're literally saying they'll deport all refugees.

Minute Cryptic's idea of 'indicators' is like no cryptic crossword compiler I've ever encountered - the kind of thing Bunthorne might do once or twice for the sake of an elegant clue, but used as a routine technique. I'm not a fan.

The ironic thing is that I had some views on my subject (terrorism and political violence) which quite a lot of my students would genuinely have found shocking - but I mostly kept quiet about them so as not to get reported to Prevent.

Hearing it!

There was a first-year kid in one of my classes who (sincerely) believed women were the weaker sex, should look after their husbands, shouldn't go out to work, etc. The girls were basically taking turns to get into arguments with him. I imagine he was shocked and offended.

Same. Also a little dubious about "our ecologists onsite".

This is the inevitable endpoint of one of the truly unifying political projects of the 2010s: ensuring that comically bigoted far right crackpots should decide what is and is not racist, a thing almost the entire political/class bent their will towards.

Never seen anything like it.

Never want to see it again.

(And there's no explanation for that that leaves everyone looking good.)

Back in 1987, I remember our lender's representative doing his level best to make an endowment mortgage sound cool and exciting. We're both very cautious when it comes to potentially losing large amounts of money, so he didn't get anywhere. But lots of people will have bought into similar appeals.

Just read a *huge* spoiler for JEANNE DIELMAN ET CAETERA courtesy of the @lrb.co.uk . A warning, at least, would have been nice.

Alas, can't be done. I was mightily impressed with Pong when I first saw it, but that was in sixth form.

Good honest October In October I read – or finished reading – two books from the £10 Box: Kate Wilhelm, Somerset Dreams D.F. Jones, Xeno Reviews on blog. I also read (or finished) Thomas Pynchon, Vineland My favourite…

Right with you.

gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2025/12/14/g...

Sure, "it could be you"; it could be you whose number on the roulette wheel comes up every time, and who always backs a long-odds winner. That's what you'd say if yoj were promoting gambling companies, because your believing that will statistically only benefit them.

No one who wasn't a politician would say that gambling "brings joy to a lot of people" without acknowledging that it (necessarily and unavoidably) brings misery to a lot more.

It's been pointed out to me that the gambling industry is in fact within Nandy's remit, so there's that. But this statement is still a prize exhibit in the Museum of Political Idiocy.