Conservatives wooed by 'hint' of ankle.

I've just got home from work. It's warm, I'm tired. Far too tired to be a fiery conspiracist. So I'm resigned once again to the fact that ..I just don't really know what's going on. Today Starmer published a response to Blair on SubStack. The title suggested confrontation: "Blair might not like my plan, but he's wrong." The first few paragraphs suggested synthesis. "Ah," I confidently thought, "..more Punch and Judy."

However, as I read on (or rather scanned on, as I half-heartedly speed-read it on the bus home), it did appear to be a defence of his term so far. Meaning, if I'm being honest, it kind of rang true. Like there was a genuine underlying division.

(Incidentally, I also saw footage of Keir Starmer taking a penalty on Twitter. He's a left footer. Bottom corner. Nicely taken.)

These are the things I saw on my bus ride home. They're not why I'm posting though. What I want to note is how people on the right, especially conservatives, are all swooning over Tony Blair again, following his mildly right-leaning essay. He only has to show a flash of ankle and they get all giddy. In fact, in the essay he hints at leaving the ECHR. He doesn't actually say it. He says that Britain needs to do whatever it takes to stop the small boats (I think, I didn't actually read it fully. It's way longer than the Starmer substack and I'm not going back to check.)

Either way, I've seen right-leaning commentators say, "He even hinted at leaving the ECHR !😍" They didn't include the exclamation mark and the heart-eyed emoji, they were my additions, but that was the vibe. Showing that he does indeed only have to show a hint of flesh to get them swooning.

It's so funny to me.

Especially when the wider context is apparent. Back in 1997, when Blair first became PM, conservatives at the time thought, "It won't be so bad, he's kind of a Tory anyway."

This was because Blair presented himself as an heir to Thatcher. Of course, that wasn't really the case, and his government turned out to be quite radical. So radical that people are now saying we have to literally reverse half the changes he made just to do something as basic as manage the border.

Yet, after all this, in the year 2026, conservatives somehow manage to find themselves thinking the exact same thing.

"He's kind of a Tory really."

It's like watching Satan give Saddam Hussein yet another chance in an episode of South Park. 

We already had a mini version of this two years ago when Starmer was elected. He was Blair's protégé, and Zero Seats "wouldn't be so bad," as at least the pragmatic (non-Corbynist) Blair regime would get the potholes fixed. This is partly why I was initially so sceptical of Starmer's substack rebuke. Starmer is Blair's creature, isn't he? He probably told him to hire Mandelson, lol.

So why are people applauding Blair for attacking a government he helped bring to power just two years ago?

(Though I must remember that we had the whole Sue Gray issue at the start of Starmer's term. Suggesting there are indeed factions within Labour.)

Whatever's going on it's quite the spectacle when taken on face value. Why are these people so dumb? They have goldfish brains.

Okay, maybe if there's some 4D chess type thing going on, I might be the dumb one. But if all these people really are just genuinely wooed this easily, heaven help us.

Again, it is funny though. Watching people that have made hours of content saying we need to upend every constitutional change that's happened since 1997 suddenly join Team Blair because they've been presented with a left/right dichotomy of Blair versus Burnham. Which, in reality, is Blair versus a Blairite. Or, at best, two very slightly different shades of New Labour red.

I Know I'm Paranoid

I'm now at the scrawling graffiti stage.

Last night we had the poll. Today it's all been about Tony Blair's intervention. Basically, he's published a report where he's said Labour need to be more based. Focus on the economy, put rejoining the EU on the backburner, ditch some of the net zero stuff. Lots of juicy red meat for people on the right. Along with some criticism of Labour's lurch towards the left.

And now the leadership hopefuls are hitting back.

Meanwhile, I'm in full conspiracist mode. My reading of all this is as follows.

• Burnham is the planned Labour saviour.
• (If something goes wrong in Makerfield, they'll have to make do with Wes Streeting.)
• Blair's intervention is basically a call for the Labour Party to pivot towards policies more appealing to the general public.
• The spat with 'the leftist hopefuls' gives them an allure of representing something new.
• However, once Burnham (or Streeting) is installed he'll adopt the Blair manifesto, and reposition towards the middle.
• By this time the rest of the party (at least the cabinet level types) will have been primed by this Blair push to know which way the wind is blowing.
• Then it's election time.

Further more.

• This puts them closer to alignment with the Tory Party repositioning on such issues.
• After the election, if it's a messy hung parliament, the possibility of Labour and Tories working together (purely in the national interest, of course) becomes an option.

This last one is very conspiracist. In fact, I call it the unthinkable. As it is unthinkable to most people. It's like Cowboys and Indians working together. They're just on different sides. That's how the movies work. Even though people now use the phrase 'uniparty,' the outward duopoly of it - the unwritten rule of the theatre - remains sacrosanct. Though I have seen the possibility mentioned a tiny, tiny bit recently.

I'm out on a limb, but I just feel the uniparty will do anything to keep Reform out.

People reading may opine, "But Reform are the Tories! Look at all the bloody Tories in there!!"

However, they're the Brexiting Tories. The faction that got pushed out with Boris. You need to ignore the label and sort the individuals by vibe. The "I agree with Nick," uniparty types don't really like the brexity types. This is not to say that some uniparty types haven't genuinely shifted opinion on some issues. It's perfectly possible that Blair himself has came around to the idea that Britain needs to get a grip on the border and start digging energy out of the ground. The pivot may not just be cynical. After all, we all swim in the same social currents. However, the fundamental differences must surely remain. It wouldn't have taken them this long to get to these positions otherwise.

Again, I'm being very suspicious in my thinking. Perhaps I'm just underestimating how messy and truly factional politics is. Maybe this current split in the Labour Party is as genuine as the split over the EU was in the Tory Party. The timing is so convenient though.

I guess only time will tell.

////

Actually, a little addendum to my earlier post about Restore looking clownish. I've seen a lot of that today as well. For instance, Steve Laws - who kind of plays the, "I'm the most openly racist person," role in UK politics - is publicly associating with Restore. Which suggests Restore do have the unelectable clown role. Though I guess you could read it in other ways. Maybe if they're just stealing votes to hurt Reform looking edgily racist is enough?

I'm returning to my uncertainty of earlier now, aren't I. Again, time will tell. We'll see what happens.

Now I'm going to watch a few episodes of The X-Files before I go to bed (fittingly). Actually, maybe just one, I've spent far too long typing this nonsense.

I Think I'm Paranoid

I'm up very early today. 7:00 am. It's one of these rare early morning posts. Let's crack on..

We had this poll about the Makerfield by-election doing the rounds on Twitter last night.

It shows Restore Britain on 17%, which just seems a bit silly. 5% would be nearer the mark, 7% at a push. But what do I know. I'm not there, and prominent media-type talking heads have been sharing this poll. So maybe it is right. Likewise, (again I only know this from Twitter), it seems Restore have a busy ground campaign in Makerfield, with lots of leafletting, door-knocking, etc.

Reform have also been openly attacking Restore, which is always a risky move, as whatever the line of attack you're still essentially using your platform to advertise a much less well known party.

On top of all this, I'm paranoid.

I'm worried this is deliberate sabotage to split the vote, to open up the red sea for Andy Burnham.

(Yet, I'm also worried my ego may be sabotaged if I get into a tizz about all this. Again, Restore seem silly. So maybe I'm being silly?)

The Clear Clownishness of Restore

The brings me to the clown-like nature of Restore. It's so bad it could be scripted. For instance, the current story is that Rupert Lowe's son has married a Libyan woman, and that halal food was an option at the wedding. Given Lowe's outward edicts against halal this is like being hit in the face with a custard pie for his supporters. Restore were supposed to be the 'Mass Deportation' whiter-than-white, hardcore alternative to Reform. Now the royal house is marrying the infidel

I'd like to watch some of the bigger accounts squirm as they justify this stuff, but sadly I can't as most of them have blocked me, lol. Seeing the little minnow accounts make excuses is pretty pitiful though. You almost feel sorry for them, assuming they're not bots.

On top of this, the female Restore candidate always has that slightly bewildered look of somehow who's been roped in to take part in something they have no interest in. I'm probably being unfair here. I haven't watched much of her. Still, it all suggests there's nothing to worry about. Restore will get less than 3% of the vote, and they'll make Reform look electable in the process.

But..

But there's that but again. Why the poll showing 17% ?

Such polls have the effect of saying, "Look, it's worth voting Restore. They're building momentum, they could actually win."

Then again, perhaps the Restore supporters are being marched up the hill just to be marched back down again? Another humiliating pie in the face.

They have Elon Musk supporting them though. Plus, they're now getting mentioned in the mainstream media.

So I'm in a bind. Not that it really matters much. It's not like I actually have any influence over what's happening. Still, I'd like to know. I can't shout at people on Twitter if I don't know who to shout at.

I really am in spectator mode. A little pleb watching on.

The New Adventures of Brexit Girl..

One of the latest semi-memeable talking points in rightwards circles is the idea that mixed race people with a white father and a black mother do better in life than those with it the other way round: a black father and a white mother. I don't know if statistics bear this out, but successful sports and music stars with the first combination are often given as an example, such as Jude Bellingham or PinkPantheress - whose father is a white, middle class statistics professor (so perhaps he should know).

Obviously, you can see why the idea has appeal with the right. Either through some genetic alchemy, or just cultural influence, the sensible white father is said to put the child on a better track. In contrast to the feckless black father, and equally feckless white mother for having children with a black man, who raise (or fail to raise) their feckless offspring. It's unsurprising we're here too. We've went from 'we don't want race-mixing' to 'what type of race-mixing do we want.' (Though, to be truthful, the genuine 'we don't want race-maxing' people were always a very tiny minority, even in online right circles. It was always edgy memes and more moderate realities underneath for the most part.) Still, the memes have moved on now to reflect a more nuanced reality. The reality that we're living in a melting pot, whether people like it or not. That it's more a question of what the melting pot looks like. It's interesting to me, as it's one of these things that's racist, but also not racist at the same time. Again, there's a nuance. Like both sides are trying to take ownership of the Yookay cultural scene, or at least the good bits of it.

"Okay, some of the music is good, actually ..but that's the white dad influence."

It's like the talking points have finally caught up to modern Britain. For a long time it felt like we had 1970s talking points (from the left and the right) pasted over a very different 21st century Britain. Now, we're finally talking about now.

Anyway, watching all this made me realise I didn't quite have it fully right with the whole Brexit Girl character. There was an element missing. So she too is mixed-race now. White dad and black mum, naturally. (Yes, I know it's a bit cringe, but it made me happy knocking up my little comic strip yesterday. So that's the main thing.)

There's a continuity error in that last panel, where the background doesn't match, but I was running out of Google Gemini and ChatGPT image credits (and patience) by that point. I actually feel it's quite accurate, if not entertaining. I don't think Andy Burnham's Catholic roots have much bearing on his pro-EU stance, but I really do see it through that lens. In my head Ursula von der Leyen might as well be in a cardinal's outfit. Though I think she'd probably wear it better.

Of course, this whole Makerfield election is quite exciting for political junkies like me. At first I was annoyed by the shenanigans, but now it's just sheer entertainment. What a country.

A Little Bit of Fiction

In more fun news I've finally finished the latest draft of BOOK II of my two book Someone Else's Kingdom fantasy series.

At some point I may do a final edit and publish these books properly. For now they're available for free in PDF form.

BOOK I can be downloaded here: https://drive.google.com

BOOK II here: https://drive.google.com

I'm now just doing artwork for the book (with a lot of help from AI). If I can get the aesthetic for the characters and the scenes down in image form (and AI really does come along over the next few years) I hope to do an anime TV series. That might be a bit beyond me though 😄, so that really is just a hope. Either way, whatever artwork I end up with could help with covers if the books do appear on Amazon.

A Spectator Watching The Starmer Drama

I'm in spectator mode. Watching as I would watch a good TV show, where I'm not sure where the plot is going.

Normally I'm not too bad at reading the tea leaves, but at the moment I just don't have a clue what's going on. Consequently, I'm not sure what I want either. Will Starmer go? Will he stay? Will we be better off for him going? Will we get something worse? Will that something worse get us to a general election quicker, and therefore somewhere better in the long run?

I don't know.

I also struggle with the methods. I'm just not cut out for the whole sneaky politics thing. So, as much as I dislike the things Starmer stands for, I don't like the idea of ousting him. It doesn't sit well with me. I don't like the shenanigans. It's not cricket. We saw all this with Boris and Truss getting ousted. It was obvious the people doing the ousting there did it because they had a different political worldview and wanted their guy in. Instead of saying that and appealing to the public though we had, "..but Boris ate cake!" or, "The bond markets!!!" etc, etc.. 

In a word lies. Or rather false dealings. Maybe Boris did have some cake, but that's not why you want him gone. That's just a convenient wedge you can feign some outrage over.

I'm one of these people that believes, perhaps incredibly naively, that honesty is the best policy; and that, in the long run, it's for the better.

There are arguments in my favour too. After all, the very clever and cunning people were telling us just two years ago that Starmer would bring stability. That the 'zero seats' strategy would be fine and dandy as Starmer would fix the potholes, bring down immigration and do the sensible things that needed doing. Things the Tories couldn't do, as they didn't have the civil service onside. Now, as we sit here, that hasn't quite worked out. We have drama on a par with the Tory drama.

So I guess my instincts are to just let Starmer get on with it. Suffer the next few years. Keep fighting the good fight, and hope for a Reform government after the next general election.

However, once again, maybe I'm just naive. Maybe if you just sat back and let him govern we'd be far worse off. Plus, perhaps there are darker things on the horizon. The other story competing for space at the moment is hantavirus. (!!!) Whatever's going on with that, it's hard to imagine a response anywhere near the covid response. People are now immune to virus fear mongering, if you pardon the pun. Still, who knows what's going on?

Returning to reading the tea leaves, I should note that I've been wrong on this Keir Starmer issue. For a while now I've been saying (on Twitter) that Starmer won't go. That the method that removed Boris won't work with Labour. As things stand today that's looking quite incorrect. So I'm not someone who can bring any enlightenment. I am indeed a spectator.

Finally, I should note that the person I fear should Starmer go is Andy Burnham. He's one of those people that women and pensioners like. He comes across as sincere. By politician standards he's fairly good-looking. Of course, it'd be like putting Gary Neville in charge of the country (and not just because of the accent), but that's by the by really. The point is he could potentially win a greater vote share. Making it harder for Reform. He's also just as pro-EU as Starmer and would probably be a better salesman for it.

Iran: Talking About The Talking Heads

I've spent the morning getting blocked on Twitter. I've now managed to get blocked by an entire subsection of the British online right:

Academic Agent

Millennial Woes

Morgoth's Review

Scrump and Evelyn

The whole set. It's funny as I literally said barely a week ago that I need to start being a bit less antagonistic on Twitter (I know, I always say this). It's just so triggering though. I read the tweets and it's painful.

What's got me this time is the Iran issue again. As I said in my last post, I fully respect people that are against the war because of the human tragedy. However, these people, they're not just against the war, they're basically on Iran's side. So we see this constant refrain of, "Trump's Crazy!", "He's an idiot!", and by extension, "MAGA (i.e. regular Americans) are stupid dupes, being fooled by the Orange Man."

It's doubly triggering as it's the British talking heads. The intellectual smartarses, who think they're so much more worldly and educated than the "MAGA-tards" with their silly red hats and American flags. Even though these MAGA-tards were often awake to the problems facing America and the Free West long before any of these talking heads were. (The pandemic alone proved how late to the party these people were. We may remember the online right pouring over graphs and begging for the borders to be closed in the opening months.)

(A similar example is Aaron Bastani, who moved a little to the right as woke was "put away" (admittedly quicker and more astutely than most on the left), but who instead of acknowledging his shift just acts like he's always been right about everything. There's never any acknowledgement that, "Yes, these working class chavs and rednecks might actually have been right about a few things when I was wrong. So perhaps I may be wrong again.")

Returning To Iran

I'm being a little personal here, but I think it's justified as the commentary coming from these ivory towers has been so unbelievably low grade. There's zero acknowledgement that Iran poses any threat whatsoever. As if the Iranian regime is wholly innocent. So it really is just an endless cacophony of, "Trump Is Crazy!"

It's a bit like if someone is constantly flicking your ear or prodding you. You ask them to stop. They say, "Sure, I'll stop." Then they start flicking your ear again. Eventually after a while you lose your temper and punch the person in the face. Of course, the wider audience only sees the punch. "That Crazy Guy Just Punched Someone For No Reason!" They don't have any awareness of the constant prodding and poking and dishonesty that preceded it.

The terrorist attacks, the repressions, the false dealings, the acts of economic warfare, etc.

Again, I'm not sure if the escalation of the war by the US and Israel is justified morally. Who am I to weigh these lives? Is such bloodshed ever justified?

I can acknowledge the growing threat though. It's not hard to imagine where Iran would be in five, ten or fifteen years given the current trajectory. With the drones and missiles, and more importantly the surveillance infrastructure, the eye in the sky, to direct and detect such things.

I hate to make the comparison, but it's like World War II. Was fighting that war worth the sheer amount of bloodshed? Some people might argue that it wasn't. That we should've simply accepted Nazi Germany as a world power. Accepted their coming dominance of the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean. And then just hoped they would be somewhat benevolent towards us in their use of it once we'd been eclipsed.

Again, I don't really know what the answer is. I do know that I'm grateful not to be living in that potential world though.

I think a lot of the talking heads, who daily indulge their freedom to talk, take it for granted though.