When Scandals Become Narratives

Today: The Rape Gang Inquiry Report.

A grim topic. First I'll deal with the title. Including my own little anecdote. Then I'll move on to the numbers.

Formerly this issue was called the grooming gangs scandal. The label has since been upgraded to rape gangs. The logic of this is understandable. Firstly, there have been acts of outright rape and gang rape. Not to mention violence, torture and other heinous things. So it's not accurate or moral to use a word as soft as grooming in these cases. Then secondly, as under-16s can't legally consent to sex, any acts that were non-forced were technically rape too. Which, again, is a correct assessment ..technically.

However, though technically correct, the reality is, this rebranding somewhat misrepresents the overall picture. As the vast majority of what took place fell into the second category, and grooming, in plain English, is a better descriptive word for it. (Which is why it was originally used.) These girls were generally charmed, chatted-up, manipulated. They believed these men were their boyfriends or partners. In plain English we use the word rape to mean forced, non-consensual sex. And yes, though in specific extreme cases this did happen, in the round that's not what was happening in these northern towns.

I live in a northern town, and I'll give my little anecdote.

When I was about twenty I started seeing this girl that I met on a night out. She was eighteen and she lived in the town centre. This was in the early 2000s. She had a little friend who was also about eighteen, who'd sometimes be hanging around with her when we met up on our little dates. Anyway, one night I met up with her - this was maybe only the third or fourth time I'd met her. Her little friend was tagging along and we were walking through the town centre, talking. It was maybe about 8 o'clock, evening time. Maybe later.

Anyway, as we were walking along talking, all of a sudden a car pulled up alongside us with three Pakistani men sat in it. They looked a lot older at the time, but were probably late twenties, early thirties. One of them popped his head out of the window, said something, and the little friend who was with us just said, "Bye, see ya later," jumped in the car, then it drove off.

I turned to the girl I was with, shocked, and said, "What the f*ck? What's going on? Where's she going??" Or words to that effect. She replied, "Don't worry, she knows them." In that sly, coy way that women do when something's going on and they don't want to speak bluntly. From the smirky look on her face it was obvious that her friend was involved physically with one of the men. So I replied, "What do you mean, 'knows them' ? She's friends with them? One of them is her boyfriend? What do you mean?"

Again, with a similar coyness she responded, "Don't worry, she knows what she's doing?"

At the time I felt annoyed that she wouldn't give me a straight answer. I was fairly inexperienced with the opposite sex, even in my early twenties, so though she was a few years younger than me I kind of felt like she was speaking to me like I was an inexperienced child that wouldn't approve of the adult things her friend was getting up to. In fact, I stopped seeing this girl not long after, partly because of that sense that she wasn't being honest. It sounds selfish, but I can remember thinking, "If she thinks it's fine for her friend to jump into a car with a bunch of older men, what's she been up to?"

I didn't have a frame of reference for what had happened back then. I'd never heard of grooming gangs. So initially I was just shocked and disgusted. However, when I thought about it, I soon got a decent framing, "Ah, okay, these girls live in the town centre. It's where the Pakistani lads live. It's poor and rough, they're from single parent homes. The Pakistani guys are older and have cars and money."

This girl was about eighteen, but it wasn't hard to imagine it would've started younger. So naturally, when I heard the stories about grooming gangs later on it was totally believable to me. It wasn't at all hard to imagine.

And it wasn't too different to what I'd seen on the council estate where I lived. Only there it was white gangs of lads, and drug dealers and drug addicts and other ne'er-do-wells. The fifteen year old girl going off with some older lad in a car. The countless teen pregnancies. People forget what the eighties and nineties were like. It was pretty rough. There were girls in my year at school that left and ended up in prostitution. There was actually a teacher at my secondary school (a white English man for the record) who got caught visiting his ex-pupils for paid sex. He got caught because he was stupid enough to visit them in the school minibus.

Back in those days the town was so poor and there were so many young women walking the streets that men would travel in cars from all over the north to take advantage of it. Again, these were mainly white men. So this mass exploitation of white working class girls wasn't solely Muslim, far from it, though undoubtedly the cultural differences did indeed have an influence on the form it took. With the Muslim men viewing these girls much the way that western men visiting Thailand would view a Thai prostitute. It's the same exploitative, crocodile-like behaviour. Where men take what they can, because they can, with little care or thought for the girl or her wider life.

People may point to the extreme examples of Muslim abuse, and yes, they are grave and sickening. But likewise there are sickening examples of abuse on council estates. Be it child abuse, or young girls ending up in relationships with violent drug addicts or wife beaters. There's a spectrum, and the extremes aren't representative of the general. The men who visit Thai brothels are undoubtedly bad and immoral, but their behaviour is clearly not as extreme as the behaviour of someone like Gary Glitter. So it would be an inaccurate misrepresentation to paint all those men as Gary Glitter. As if that was the norm.

Anyway, The Numbers

The report states that, "at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma."

That's a pretty big and difficult to believe number. That "at the very least" almost makes it comical.

Over two years ago I posted this on Twitter, as the trend for exaggeration was apparent back then:

A lot of the people that believe and share these ridiculous numbers are also the sort of people that call Jewish people liars for stating that six million people died in the Holocaust. Alas, they fail to see the irony. They're even calling for Nuremberg style trials at the moment, so it's funny. It should serve as a good education to everyone.

The Nazis were bad. They ended democracy, they invaded countries. They killed lots of people. They put Jews in camps. They killed Jewish people. They euthanised the disabled. 

However, at the same time, the six million figure probably is an exaggeration, and some of the propaganda, especially from the soviet side, is just that, propaganda.

Likewise, it's similar here. Appalling things happened to some of these girls. Sickening crimes, that need to be exposed and punished.

However, the huge numbers being thrown around are not a reflection of reality. (I've even seen people state there were over one million victims.)

People don't share these huge numbers because they're liars (though there may be the odd trouble-making individual). It's just the human propensity to believe ever bigger numbers. Especially when such numbers support a narrative or worldview.

It's like the war in Iraq. People against the war will say, "One Million Civilians Were Killed!" Whereas people in favour of the war will naturally gravitate to the lowest estimates for civilian casualties. It's just human nature. And if you try to give an impartial estimate that's somewhere in the middle no side wants to hear it.

I do think it's important to keep trying to temper this urge though, as sooner or later things become too detached from reality. The problem with the woke worldview was that it sailed off the cliff into phantasms. Now the other side are clutching their pearls in similar hysterics every time people fail to pay sufficient lip-service to their narratives.

Like if you dare to use the word groomed instead of the word raped.

A Modern Dissolution of the Monasteries

These book-burning priests need to go.

The UK government has announced its social media ban for under-16s. (Yes, obviously this will mean adults needing online ID to prove they're over-16 - so digital dog leads via the backdoor. Not especially surprising. It's been baked into the cake since 'zero seats' handed Labour supreme power.)

I want to focus on another aspect though. Namely how this is yet another issue that proves the education system is a net negative.

You'll see headlines like this:

(Teachers very much supporting the ban)

The teachers want phones and social media out of their classrooms. Feeling it causes trouble. I would argue that the problem is school itself though.

There's lots of talk about how difficult it is for parents to keep their children offline. The problem isn't really at home though. The problems begin when the parent sends their child to school. Where there's peer pressure from other children to be online and to have a phone in the first place. Where other children use their own phones to film classmates and cause other mischief. It's like sending your child into a little urban jungle, where they're caught between the influence of unruly (sometimes even criminal) children and the influence of exasperated teachers - teachers that aren't capable of managing the situation and that, quite frankly, don't care about your child as much as you do.

Of course, children aren't just there for a few hours a week either. They're there five days a week. For pretty much the entire day when you include the bus ride.

Why anyone thinks this will benefit a child is beyond me.

It's not conducive to actual learning. How can you learn in a rabble?

I'm currently typing this blog in a quiet room, on my own. It'd be a lot harder in a room full of twenty or thirty people. Even if they were all perfectly behaved.

More importantly, just think of that negative social influence - and I'm talking real-world social influence here, not something on a screen that you can turn off if you don't like it.

Never mind the prison-like monotony of such a long, cooped up day at school, but consider that endless influence from the other kids. The rough kids; the unruly ones ..that you can't escape, as you're forced to spend your time with these people. You don't have a choice. The constant noise and chitchat. Every day and every lesson you have to sit and listen to the teachers argue with these other children. If you laugh the teacher shouts at you too. If you don't laugh you alienate yourself from the other kids.

Just as you alienate yourself if you're the only one who doesn't have a mobile phone.

This isn't a problem when you're at home. Or with your actual friends. But it is a problem when you're in the jungle, and you're stuck there, and you have to fit in and navigate the social dynamics.

The Internet Isn't Bad

The Internet is wonderful. It's the modern printing press. You can home-school your child in perfect peace with a decent Wi-Fi connection.

So why are we sending children into the rabble every day?

To places so incapable of managing, let alone teaching the children under their care that they have to beg for a government ban to give them a fighting chance.

The teachers can't cope. They say they can't cope. Yet still we persist with this system. That at best provides very poor education, and at worst has the effect of making children worse. Just as prison and the influence of other prisoners hardens criminals.

I'm in the realms of hyperbole here, but it's not untrue.

We need to get beyond this. We need a modern Dissolution of the Monasteries.

[I've covered this topic before:

What School Should Look Like

State Education: A Modern Cargo Cult

Education Austerity, 2024

Glorified Day Care ]

Makerfield Pre-World Cup Punishment

Update time.

First little note, Mummy Badenoch apparently said she'd be prepared to help Farage into power to stop a left wing government. Her exact words in response to the question were, "This country can't have another left-wing government." Which appears to suggest that this is the case. It would also suggest my fears about the Tories potentially looking elsewhere in a hung parliament are unfounded.

However, this has all since been refuted, and when you read the wider transcript it's all a bit word-salady. Giving the sense of a politician dancing round the houses. So we're basically none the wiser.

https://order-order.com/2026/06/11/badenoch-says-she-would-let-farage-into-no10-to-stop-left-wing-government/

The bigger update.

My main reason for posting is that I've just watched a "Round 2" of the Makerfield Question Time discussion. This time courtesy of Manchester Evening News and Winstanley College.

It was painful to watch, as it meant listening to the feel-good empty words of the LibDem and Green candidates. (I'm trying to get this written, plus do some other chores, before the World Cup starts in a few hours, so I didn't really want to make the effort to watch the whole thing. I felt I had to though, given it was what I asked for after the original Question Time debate.)

Firstly, on Andy Burnham. When the others were speaking he looked bored (which is understandable ..but not a good look). Whenever he got the chance to speak he then suddenly perked up, like a true professional, and transformed into trendy headteacher mode. I'm not sure I'll be able to stomach this if he does become prime minister. I might have to go and live in a cave somewhere. Starmer already governs with a headteacher vibe, but at least he's a bit more staid and old school. This would be too much for me.

The students in the audience were enjoying it though. Everything he said got a round of applause. (And that's not a pun on him being headmaster-like. They were actual students, what with it being at a college.)

As for Robert Kenyon I thought he was really good. He started out nervous, but grew into the debate. Even more so than last time. He was never going to win the audience over - naturally it was very young and left-wing. I think the more average voter watching would've been impressed though. You get the feeling he would actually do a good job representing the area.

As I noted in the other post, it's refreshing to see someone who speaks like a normal person. I really hope he wins. If anything just to see the experiment continue.

What Is Anglo-Gaullism? Really?

Not what's the philosophy of it, but what is it, actually?

What it is (in my opinion, as ever) is the latest thing for intellectuals to talk about. It has a novelty, and it gives people an excuse to discuss history and all that other interesting stuff. Europe after World War II, the differences between the French and the English, and so on.

I watched a recent debate about it on UnHerd. Before it began the audience in the room were asked to raise their hand if they already considered themselves to be an Anglo-Gaullist. In spite of the novelty most did.

Why?

I would argue it's because it essentially just repackages their pre-existing beliefs into something more trendy and intelligent-sounding.

The basic core ideas are nationalism and a strong welfare state/state-directed economy - i.e. the general middle ground of what most British voters want at the moment. It's not really that novel at all.

However, with Anglo-Gaullism there's also a third element that the general public don't share. Anti-Americanism. Which is another indicator that this is an intellectual pursuit. As it's a thing common across the entire intellectual class of Britain. From Peter Hitchens on the right, to people like Aaron Bastani on the left.

I like all these people, and I consume the podcasts and debates as much as anyone else in the audience, but I just don't share that same disdain for America. In fact, the World Cup begins tomorrow and I have £20 on the USA to win it. A long shot admittedly (a work colleague told me I might as well have thrown £20 out of the window, lol), but I couldn't resist. I'll be supporting America anyway (along with England), so with Trump in the White House I'm hoping for a bit of magic.

The intellectual class still can't quite get over the crassness of Trump however. (And the unrefined power of America in general.) For all the groundswell of changing opinion on things like borders and immigration and DEI the more civilised folks remain unable to adopt the plain label nationalist. Even Faragist-Nationalism - a British, colourblind, equal-under-the-law nationalism - is too beyond the pale of respectability. So wrapping things up in a French, distinctly un-British, costume makes the label so much more wearable.

This isn't just nationalism, this is Marks & Spencer nationalism.

So it's an elite, exquisite opinion. And it'll remain elite, as normal people would never embrace a nationalism fixed upon a foreigner. (Though you could argue it's a very clever way of enticing other members of the intellectual class into adopting some of these ideas ..perhaps Peter Hitchens understands only too well that he needs to sell acting in the British interest to those that recoil at the sheer thought.)

There's also the question of who would be invested with this extra state power. Who would be the Anglo de Gualle? Farage has a French name, but that's clearly not enough. Kemi Badenoch certainly has the arrogance of a Frenchman, but she doesn't have the actual support of the nation. (I actually like Kemi Badenoch's arrogant manner. It's, dare I say it, quite attractive. I think a lot of the Tory men that circle her with praise - the ones that aren't homosexual - feel a similar pull. It's a trap I won't be falling into. I certainly won't be calling her "mummy" like they do, but I can appreciate the magnetism. Just as I can recognise the effect Burnham has on his dopey, female-heavy audience, though I won't be buying that ticket either.)

Back to the Anglo-Gaullism for the final word. A big part of the whole argument is that state reform is needed to strengthen the hand of the executive - whoever has it. There is a case for this. Post-1997 changes do need overturning. Still, it's a bit of an exercise in chitchat and ideas. During the COVID lockdowns we saw how powerful the state could be when it wanted to. We likewise saw how little things like human rights and legal challenges mattered. So it's a lot of intellectual deckchair rearranging in reality. Likewise, part of the reason why the debate about Anglo-Gaullism irked me a little was because I view it as a sign that the intellectual class of Britain are getting lost in abstractions again. During COVID those that were against the lockdowns had a very real and apparent threat to face down. Now that's rescinded there's a creep back towards luxury beliefs.

Perhaps I need to look in the mirror though. Here I am writing my own article about this when I could be out knocking on doors or doing something else more real-worldy.

[On a minor, but related topic, I noticed today that the Facebook page for the local Reform UK branch (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) has abandoned the party (or the party's abandoned it - I'm not sure who ejected who first). The person running the account advocated supporting Rupert Lowe instead. I don't really know what's going on, but given it's my local area perhaps I should.]

Labour: Rebrand Not Revolution

Another post where I'm tired as I've just got home from work, but I feel I need to make a few notes.

Firstly, there were a few little stories that would suggest it is indeed rebrand rather than revolution for Labour.

1) A Guido Fawkes story stating that Tory personnel have been instructed not to attack Andy Burnham too much: https://order-order.com/2026/06/05/

2) Another story stating that Andy Burnham will keep Rachel Reeves as chancellor if he becomes PM: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/

3) A third story noting that Andy Burnham has an "open mind" on drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/03

They all suggest my instincts were correct.

Question Time

The other thing I wanted to make a quick note about was last night's Question Time.

It was fascinating to watch. Reform's Robert Kenyon - the plumber! - appeared, and he was completely uncoached. So much so that in parts he actually came across as idiotic - a few times the audience even laughed at him. I don't really know very much about him, so this was my first real introduction, and it was difficult to make a judgement. He obviously isn't a professional politician, and appearing on Question Time really is being thrown in at the deep end. As the show went on he began to find his feet. He even managed to nail a key soundbite when he asked the Green Party candidate if she believed immigration affected housing. Most people don't watch Question Time in full, but they will see clips, so this moment probably made the appearance a net positive.

Again, it was really interesting to watch, as we're so used to seeing politicians who can give a sales pitch. People that have that spokesperson way of speaking. This was like watching a normal bloke thrown in amongst professionals. I'm sure I'd look like an idiot if I was put in that situation ..but, of course, I'm not an idiot. If I do say so myself. So I suspect it's similar here. It's like a bad job interview where you're put on the spot and you haven't rehearsed your answers. Only national TV. So it was hard to watch at times, but also refreshing.

In contrast we also had PM-in-waiting Andy Burnham on the show. He is very personable. He's likeable. He's one of these people that can have a chat with the girls in the office. He's not socially awkward. Much more so than most politicians. Most politicians have their smooth sales pitch, but they look like salesmen, he comes across as sincere when he does it though. You could see all the dopey women in the audience hanging on his words a bit when he spoke. (I'm only calling them dopey as I'm jealous they don't fawn like that for me ..they are a bit dopey though, and easily charmed by empty words.)

On top of this his years in national and local politics means he knows the ins and outs. When questions about housing and funding for flood defences and whatnot cropped up he knew which body was responsible for which bit of spending and all the other little details that being immersed in that world means you know.

So we saw quite an interesting spectacle. I'd like to see a 'Round 2', to see if Kenyon grows into the role. I can imagine he'll get a bit more coaching after that, but at the same time you'd rather see someone find their voice naturally. It also brings to the fore some of the things that cropped up during Brexit. That contrast between articulate people with ideologies and inarticulate people with common sense.

This old observation: https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-remain-brain-vs-leave-perceiver.html

The next dozen days of so are worth keeping an eye on for many reasons.

I'm Kyle from South Park

My recent spurt of posts have been a touch mean-spirited. Describing the "types of people," in not altogether flattering terms, that exist in the various UK political parties. I don't like being cynical and overly-critical, (though I definitely have that in my character), so I was wondering why I'm being like that at the moment.

When I thought about it I realised it was because I'm annoyed about the shenanigans!

When I think back to how I was after the last general election I was in zen mode. It wasn't the result I wanted, but I was happy to accept the result and show some good faith. "Four or five years of Labour. It's not the end of the world," I thought, "In four or five years' time we might get Reform. So let's just make the best of it."

I didn't think there would be any shenanigans, because the political class had gotten their own way. They wanted Starmer. He was their darling. In the previous years we did have shenanigans. Boris, elected with a huge mandate, ousted before he could serve his term. Then Liz Truss got a similar, but speedier removal. Of course, before that we had Theresa May and the Brexit goings-on.

Now, alas, we have another round of musical chairs. Any thought that we might go back to electing a guy, letting him govern for a full term, then appraising him after that, quickly dashed. It is annoying, and, of course, anyone with any basic degree of intelligence can see that it looks a bit dubious. Even if, like me, you're not entirely sure what's going on. People kind of know that this isn't the normal way of doing things.

So, though I don't want to be cynical, I do think I have a bit of an excuse. Although, saying that, it might now be time to dial it back down again and be a bit more forgiving.

One final observation though..

Let me make one final little observation. I can't really resist this one.

Recently I've questioned the role of Restore. The other day I saw this post on Twitter. (You can see from the little blue mark in the corner that I bookmarked it.)

Note the image. Carl is wearing a brightly-coloured, vaguely-Hawaiian style shirt. The guy in the suit has bright, clearly dyed hair. This is 'clown' apparel. Anyone who's watched the Lotus Eaters will know that Carl always wears a suit, including a tie. He understands the importance of presenting an image. Yet out with Restore he's in the leisure wear.

I should say that I'm not saying these things look bad in general. The orange shirt looks perfectly nice, and the young gentleman with the floppy hair would look the part at some avant-garde indie night. But in politics, especially on the right, this is the equivalent of wearing a bright red nose and clown shoes.

For instance, if you were up in court and your lawyer turned up wearing the shirt Carl is wearing you'd have your head in your hands.

So they're definitely not getting 17% of the vote. That's for sure.

A Window into the Mind of New Labour

I don't regret the post I made last night about the Andy Burnham logo, however, I probably was a little bit mean. After all, it's just a logo. That initial disbelief on seeing it though, lol.

Today I want to talk about something else I saw yesterday. Yesterday morning I watched the following interview, where Camilla Tominey interviews Tony Blair's former Director of Political Operations, John McTernan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2swxfjb1w&t=1915s

It was incredible to watch, as he seems to embody to perfection the type of person that lives at the heart of New Labour. And not New Labour in the full Blairite sense, but genuine New Labour in the round - i.e. he exists on a spectrum somewhere between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He's the New Labour equivalent of white van man, which is fitting as they talked about white van man a bit in the interview.

If I was better at YouTube I'd do a reaction video, and give my responses blow by blow. As I'm not I'll just make my observations in bullet point. I do urge people to watch it though.

• Firstly, as he's from those New Labour circles you get a bit of inside baseball. He mentions that he thinks Tony Blair is backing Andy Burnham. You get the sense that he's high enough up to know this, but not quite high enough up to know he's not supposed to give the game away. Then later, when the question of Keir Starmer's life after being prime minister pops up, he says maybe he'll do a David Cameron and come back as foreign secretary. Giving another sense: that this is basically a Tony Blair reshuffle, rather than a real Labour revolution. As if the role of PM is just another cabinet position that the actual party leaders can shuffle people in and out of. (I'm being a little cynical and conspiracist again here, but it's hard not to be.)

• Getting to the debate, there was a bit about immigration. He was labelling Reform 'far right' for wanting to 'forcibly' deport 'two million people' [an addendum to this next bullet point]. CT (Camilla Tominey) was pushing back against this. He was very reluctant to concede any ground on the issue, but at the same time he didn't want to just advocate open borders. So he kind of accepted that illegal entrants into the country had to be dealt with, but in a very 'having his cake and eating it way.' CT asked, surely you have to use some force to remove people? What if they refuse to leave? He replied, well then the government can "assist" them. Which is incredibly wormy language. He just couldn't bring himself to use the word force, like it went against his sense of self in some fundamental way and his brain just wouldn't allow it. This is why the video is such an eye opener as to why these people shouldn't be running the country. They can't take responsibility. Obviously, none of us particularly like the idea of forcibly detaining another human being and removing him or her from the country, but someone has to do it at some point or you don't have a border. It's almost insane that someone in a position of power can't acknowledge this basic fact.

• [Addendum] I have to note here that the efforts to push Reform to use more extremist language on immigration, such as "Mass Deportations," has indeed damaged the party. As deporting two million people does just sound crazy to people. It was the one part of the interview where CT couldn't own the position. Again, because it sounds mad. Why put yourself in that position when you can just say, "We want immigration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and we will completely stop the small boats, sending any illegals who arrive back." Why get into hypotheticals about people that have been here for years before you've even fixed the core problem?

• [Anyway, back to the interview.] Another telling moment came when the issue of Chinese investment into Britain came up. He was pushed to acknowledge China's human rights record, which he did. However, he did it in such a blasé, unemotional way. He basically said, "Yes, they do have a terrible human rights record, and we always raise that with them, but they also have a lot of money." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the vibe. You would admire the pragmatism, were it not for the sentences that followed. As he then said, "China has a lot of capital, but America has a lot of capital." As if, in his mind, America and China are equivalent. The fact that America is a democracy, with the rule of law and free speech, that intimately shares our values, completely absent. Just a, "Well, if it wasn't China, it'd be America investing.. what's the difference," attitude.

• There was another bit where he touted the idea of having a public-private partnership scheme that helped every white van man in the country get a new electric van. The public-private partnership thing is obviously so New Labour. The fixation on green energy a more recent, but equally clichéd theme. I'm not against electric vehicles, but the thing is with this is that it's yet another example of focusing energy and money on things that don't need doing because of ideology, and because these people like the idea of doing something that feels modern. White van men already have vans, they're called white van men because they have the vans. They're not carrying their tools on the tube because they don't have a van. At some point in the future their vans will end up on the scrap heap and they'll have to buy a new van - maybe an electric one. This isn't something we desperately need government involvement in. Of course, I'm sure it would be very nice for the private companies in these public-private partnerships if perfectly fine working vans were prematurely scrapped and some fancy new electric ones prematurely entered the market. It's harder to imagine such an unfrugal use of resources being genuinely good for the environment though.

• Finally, there was also a bit where CT suggested that the high immigration levels have put pressure on younger people when it comes to finding jobs. McTernan was asked how Labour should help these younger people. He completely avoided answering the actual question and went off on a long-winded speech that ended with him sharing an anecdote about how a doctor he knows is using AI to help take notes on consultations with patients. Saving time and making things more efficient. It was another example of not being able to focus on the real world and instead wanting to stroll off into talking points that the political class find fashionable. In the last example it was green technology. In this case AI.

I think that's it. I don't want to be too harsh. I don't think these people are evil, or have bad intentions or anything. They're just very secluded in some weird, modern ivory tower, that makes it impossible for them to get to grips with actual reality. And it's eye-opening when you see it on plain view.