Mandelson might no longer be US Ambassador but can we be sure he isn't still pulling all the Labour party strings?

Not so much "Starmer brought Mandelson into the fold" and more "Mandelson chose Starmer to be his figurehead".

They're not called scurvy sea dogs for nothing

(hours asleep * -1) + 24

and positioning Wes to take over

It is the things you want to do that determine how morally dubious or not it is

Even if it *was* due to campaigning from the opposition—which it isn't—what do they think the opposition should be doing? Do they believe it inappropriate for the opposition to oppose them?

Indeed the official opposition has so little cut through I am occasionally surprised to be reminded it still exists.

"Positive rate."
"Feet in."

He can prove it with a graph

I know why they talk so much about it though. What it means is: the most important policies are settled and cannot be changed, therefore the only thing we have left to argue about is who will most competently administer them.

I hope to live to see the word competence excised from politics discourse. Competence is for the civil service. What I want from politicians is wisdom and judgement instead.

LLMs are not the only things that hallucinate.

Morning Sloane 👋

There must be a couple of thousand at least

Why do they all run like they need a shit

Normal for Connections then.

This is the vibe of every single seagull.

No! That is the best part!

From what I've observed, only a few have.

Sweet dreams 😴

Must admit I'm wondering what it is the press get out of running this man's dirty little errands.

That's because it wasn't supposed to, but Simons was too stupid to understand that.

Basically all politics reporting is like Elwood in The Blues Brothers:

"I just took the liberty of bullshitting you a little...it wasn't lies, it was just bullshit."

I even needed security clearance before they would let me work as a sub contractor on a software project for the Passport Office.

Probably for the best

More productive than usual today for some reason

Indeed, I was thinking rather of the people who overruled the security vetting when instead they should have said absolutely not.

Naturally, absolutely no-one will face any consequences for this

Also can't help but think the progress in the second half of the 20th Century was caused by *very* particular circumstances which are not going to be repeated. It's quite unclear if any other circumstances can produce similar progress, and if so, what