Morning music
Saturday quiz
Well, 8/10 this week, thus trumping the 5/10 scored by political journalist John Rentoul. I did not know the answers to questions 6 and 7.
Tweets seen
[“Excl: Whitehall officials are growing concerned about how little time Andy Burnham has spent in Downing Street since becoming Prime Minister.
At a Cabinet Office all-staff meeting earlier this week, First Secretary Louise Haigh even joked No10 was “extremely distressed” by how often the PM was away from the building – before stressing it was because he was “so dedicated and committed” to getting out around the country and delivering his agenda.
Haigh also told officials to “take your cue from the Prime Minister’s ambition”, saying he was “not the kind of politician that has to have a full plan before he starts diagnosing the problems in the country”.
She urged civil servants to bring forward ideas “no matter how risky or politically unpalatable it seems” and to “put it in front of us and let’s thrash it out”.]
Ah. So Burnham is “so dedicated and committed to getting out and around the country and delivering his agenda” yet actually has no real agenda, so what his travelling around really means is his showing off and spouting meaningless hot air. Pathetic.
Also, if this latest government of clowns has a supposed or worked-out “agenda”, why would they be asking civil servants to come up with ideas? Because Burnham and his cronies have none?
It sounds very much as if the mindset is “Britain needs a way forward but we have no idea what that should even be, let alone how to achieve it“…
Utterly pathetic.
Further thought: while, in strict British Constitutional theory, there is nothing to prevent Burnham becoming an MP “by arrangement”, then simply taking over as Prime Minister, in the real political world he will not be thought of, by most voters, as really legitimate until and unless he holds a general election.
At present, despite Labour now overhauling Reform UK in some opinion polls, it is quite likely that any early general election would result in Labour losing about half its present 405 MPs. If it were to reduce its numbers anywhere below 326, it will be seen as, and indeed would be, a lame duck government.
That is Burnham’s dilemma. At present, he seems to be against holding a general election, but unless he can pull a rabbit out of the hat soon, Labour will be toast (again).
Labour’s polling numbers will probably start to decline (again) before long.
[“Fox News, citing a new chart, announced that approximately two-thirds of the United States’ 2,330 Patriot missiles, held before a potential war with Iran, have been expended, reducing the US Army’s air defense system reserves to about 800 missiles!
Additionally, according to information released by Fox News, half of the U.S. THAAD air defense system’s reserves have also been consumed.“]
Bad news for the USA, Israel, and the Kiev regime, as well as the fake “states” of the Gulf; good news for both Iran and Russia.
Jesus H. Christ! This is what Europe is facing— an invasion by barbaric untermenschen. Mow them down.
Look at the underlying disease, not merely the symptom(s).
Not one, however, who “struts his stuff” vulgarly; an English gentleman who, however, has ideas and principles, and some steel…
[“Collectivism is an evolutionary behaviour that enables people to survive things that they could never survive as individuals, and to develop civilisations and higher forms of living.
Whereas extreme individualism, in nature, is the reserve of primitive creatures and organisms.
The consequence of this is that collectivist societies and political forces will always dominate, in the long term, over individualistic and Liberal ones because they have, on average, an intelligence advantage.
The kind of neo-liberal hyper-capitalist individualism that exists on the ‘right’ today is a consequence of dysgenic societies that have facilitated the survival of people who in previous times would have either died or been killed off due to their selfishness and greed.
This is why Thatcherite, neoliberal politics is a dead end – it has no future because in times of real political crisis evolution kills it off.”]
Of the several leaders of small nationalist parties in the UK at present, Yerbury stands out by reason of his powers of analysis and reason. His views seem to be quite similar to my own, in general, and from what I have read of them, so that is, of course, a strong recommendation for me.
https://markacollett.substack.com/p/the-town-that-chose-to-commit-suicide
Well worth reading.
“Refugees welcome” dimwits and virtue-signallers who got what they deserved but also inflicted the same on their fellow-citizens. Poundshop traitors.
Our animal friends.
The behaviour of many of the [Israeli] Jews is so appalling that even a Jewish Zionist scribbler is pained by their sadism and cruelty.
I have taken very little interest in the Manchester mayoral election circus. I just looked at the winner, one Bev Craig [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Craig], a lesbian who sees no problem with the migration invasion (despite Manchester having been hit very hard by it).
Incidentally, why do so many female MPs, especially Labourites, call themselves by funny-peculiar diminutives (“Bev”, “Cat” etc)?
That tweet is right. People are not going to vote, many or even most of them, and the reason is because they hate and/or despise the parties standing. In the Manchester case, they had no faith, and were right to have no faith, in either Reform or Restore, let alone the System parties.
Why then did Labour win, albeit by getting 47% on a 25% turnout, i.e. by getting only about 12% of all eligible voters’ votes? Simple. “Ethnic” (non-white) voters, and/or public service worker voters.
Put simply, about 88% of the people of Manchester did not want Labour enough to vote for the new not-a-lady mayor.
Late tweets
Kiev-regime terrorism, probably.
John Cleese once again proves that he is invertebrate (has no backbone).
90% of the time when there is something rotten in the body politic, “they” are behind it somewhere.
Translates to a Commons with about 303 Labour MPs (about 23 short of a majority, and therefore requiring Labour to compact with the LibDems, or SNP, or both); 160 Reform UK MPs (official Opposition); 72 LibDems; 59 Cons; 24 SNP; 8 Greens [etc].
Perhaps social nationalism will rise up in 2033, 100 years after 1933…
Late music
