If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done slowly...

It's common today to have a pop at Mr Starmer's government for not achieving anything much but one thing it looks like it might actually achieve is ... something that should have happened 25 years ago.

 And I think we should celebrate it.

For it is a thing the British Establishment has resisted as firmly as King Canute for over 25 years - indeed perhaps since 1911....  the shame and embarrassment of still having people in our upper chamber for no other reason than they were born with a nose made of toffee.

Yes, I refer to the final and very very very very very very very very very long overdue abolition of hereditary peers.

Who could defend such a thing in 2021? 

Well, the people on this page...

So as the bill eats up more more Parliamentary time and moves in as sedentary a way as possible  towards to eventually becoming law...  let us take a moment this VE day to savor this great and long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long delayed piece of Constitutional history by reviewing the thought of the Lords themselves (as recorded in Hansard) about which of them are about to be gone for a burton and their ludicrous arguments for putting off the inevitable only slightly further into the future ... like 8,000,000,000 AD when the sun dies...

Lord True (Conservative Life Peer appointed by Cameron in 2010) bemoaned that sacking his besties wasn't as important as iniquity to the Landed Gentry having to pay the same inheritance tax as the townies: "This is a strange day. Outside, there are desperate farmers, fearful of their future after a shock tax attack on their families; inside, here in this Chamber, the Government are focusing not on helping those hard-working people out there, but on purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members. Well, we can see this Government’s priorities."  He went on to have a dig at Lord Sugar for not turning up : "The noble Baroness opposite, the Leader of our House, spoke skillfully and courteously, as she always does, and tried to gild not so much as a lily as a gigantic stinging nettle for many Members here: the blunt message that the Bill sends out to 88 of our number is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, puts it, “You’re fired —you and you and you!”. By the way, I wonder how often the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, comes here, but he counts for one of the Cross-Bench numbers, the same as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Indeed, one of the many regrettable features of the Bill as it goes forward will be seeing some of those who do not participate very often being whipped to vote out those who do."  

Yes, in the woolly logic of Lord True's mind the reason people should have a right to vote in the upper chamber is because they use their vote more than those who abstain more often.  Perhaps he should emigrate to Australia where voting is compulsory which resulted in "Donkey Voting" ...people selecting candidates simply based on the order they are listed in on the ballot paper ...giving those with names beginning with A a 2% advantage or some such nonsense.  

As to why Lord Sugar doesn't turn up to vote... this question was asked of him recently by Amol Rajan in a BBC interview (see here) and he responded along the lines that he felt uncomfortable trotting through the lobbies to vote on matters like Education that he didn't really understand.  No such self doubt seems to afflict many of the hereditary peers or the likes of Lord True - perhaps this is the real difference between professional politicians and the plebs... well, that and Lord Sugar may be on "bigger tings"...

Lord True's other objections to the abolition of hereditary peers seem not to be philosophical or ideological as much as related to his own hurt feelings: "I was sad when the Bill’s arrival was met with a loud cheer. It was hurtful. I was sitting then alongside the noble Earl, Lord Howe. That is not who we are, as represented by the tone of the speech we have heard already, and it is not what we should ever become—although we have seemed a little scratchier and more partisan of late, if I may say so. I trust that, through the difficult passage of the Bill, we will not fall short of our traditional courtesy but, frankly, the Government cannot expect all of us on this side or on the Cross Benches to like the Bill or, indeed, what is threatened in the manifesto to those among us who were born in the 1940s. If it is pushed through with a flinty inflexibility, that flint cannot help but strike sparks of resentment and sour the atmosphere in this House, not just in this Session but for Sessions to come."  What the 1940s have to do with anything your guess is as good as mine but I think we can all agree that Lord True shouldn't be made to feel at all uncomfortable as that's not what my grandfather fought in the second world war for.  It is interesting that Lord True seems to view the House of Lords as a place of fun, friendliness and jollity.  It reminds me of when Dennis Skinner said that what he couldn't get over about speaking in the Commons was the level of hatred in the eyes of other people or something ... the expression of anger and conflicting views in a safe environment is what Parliamentary Democracy should be all about?

Lord True of course knows that the continuation of hereditary peers is doomed and indefensible so he tries for the usual other strategy that has worked for the previous 25 years.  Delay.  "The noble Baroness says that there is unfinished business: there are some hereditary Peers still here and, despite what was agreed by Parliament in 1999, we must root them out. But I ask noble Lords: will driving out those hard-working Members improve our House? I do not think so. As I said in our recent debate, there is an easy way—a proven House of Lords way—to square the circle and to end for ever the arrival of hereditary Peers, yet keep our colleagues who serve us all well. It is what was done with the Irish peerage and the Law Lords: the House ended the inflow but kept its Members. That, effectively, as the noble Baroness said, was the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but now we hear that the time for that is past. Why? "  If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done slowly.

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer who succeeded to the barony in 1985 at the age of 25, following the death of his grandfather Thomas Galbraith, 1st Baron Strathclyde) who is staring down the barrel of the redundancy gun is an even less happy bunny and spat out the following along, probably, with some teeth : "I know he [Lord Falconer appointed by Blair] will not agree, but this is a thoroughly nasty little Bill, rushed through the House of Commons and brought to us with little thought about the future. It breaks a fundamental and solemn agreement made in 1998 by the then Labour Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave only when the Labour Government had introduced their plan for a fully reformed House. It did not seem like a very big statement of intent in 1998. After all, as was said at the time, the Labour Party was about to come forward with a fully reformed plan. We have been waiting 25 years for that and the Labour Party has demonstrated no thought, no thinking and no progress whatever."  

For those from Generation Y and Generation Alpha who are too young to remember because they weren't born then when actually happened was late Earl of Onslow (daddy to the one whose house burnt down and can now only be seen in old episodes of Jeeves & Wooster) blackmailed the Blair government threatening to force them to use the Parliament Act 1911 and grind legislation to a halt unless some peers were saved from the chop the last time chopping them was attempted.  He openly said, "I'm happy to force a division on each and every clause of the Scotland Bill. Each division takes 20 minutes and there are more than 270 clauses." And so a fudge was agreed allowing some peers to remain brokered by the then Speaker of the House of Commons know as the Weatherill Amendment.... which allowed hereditary peers to cling on using a bizarre byelection process in which only the toffee nosed could participate...  

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "Why are the Government bringing forward this measure now? Is it because it is in the manifesto?"  

Yes, that's democracy, mate. 

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "I do not think that is really good enough. It does not stop it going through but there needs to be a more serious justification for why this Bill is being brought forward. What is worse, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained a moment ago, this creates a wholly appointed House where—and this is what he did not say—the appointments are almost entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the by-elections were still continuing but, of course, they were suspended in July. There is therefore no hereditary Peer in this House, because there is nobody able to pass on their place to sit and vote in the House of Lords on to their heirs."  

Of course the house is fully appointed - the only difference between hereditary peers and life peers is whether they were appointed by the living or the dead.  

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "This is not a reform."  

Yes, it is.  

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "It tells us nothing about the Government’s thinking. We will wait many years before a future Bill is published. Also, the Bill offers no continuity. Rumours abound of life peerages being offered to those due to be purged—if they behave. If the Government are planning life peerages, why do they not tell us who is going to receive one or how many life Peers are going to be created, and then those affected can make plans for the future? Is it really conceivable that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has been picked by the Cross Benches to be their convenor, is to be expelled in the purge? If he has not been offered a life peerage yet, why not? Why are these matters secret? The Government must have a view. They must have discussed these issues."  Actually a good question - have carrots been offered?  He then raises the question of who is hereditary. "Peers in the House sometimes who have no idea who is a life Peer or who is a hereditary Peer; it is quite an issue. I have lost count of the number of Peers who have said to me, “Ah, well, you’ll be all right, you’re a life Peer after all”. Do many Peers know if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is a life Peer or a hereditary Peer, with his distinguished record as a Minister in the House of Commons, or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, who is an expert on Africa and business? Is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a life Peer or a hereditary Peer? Perhaps we ought to have a list."  Well, we know you're a hereditary, mate..."

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat Life Peer appointed by Mr Blair) bravely suggested in response that perhaps the timeline had been stretched out a bit : "The Bill falls short because it fails to meet the bigger challenge of a more fundamental reform of the House. Removing all the remaining hereditary Peers at least helps us move into the 20th century. As my noble friends Lord Newby and Lord Rennard noted in a debate on Lords reform on 12 November, the preamble to the Liberal Government’s Parliament Act 1911 read: “And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation”.  That was 113 years ago: I think we have waited long enough."

Baroness Goldie (Conservative Life Peer appointed by Lord Cameron) gave us the following stats on how deeply the hereditary peers have embedded themselves in the apparatus of Parliament: "Of the 88 hereditary Peers, this is what I discovered. There may be minor errors...  

Six are Deputy Speakers, one of whom is the Convenor of the Cross Benches. 

An additional three discharge advisory panel duties for the Lord Speaker. 

Eleven are opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. 

Thirty-six serve on committees, of whom 20 serve on a single committee, 12 serve on two committees, 

two serve on three committees, 

one serves on five committees a

nd, deserving of an award for valour, one serves on six committees. 

These 56 regularly contribute to the proceedings of the House. 

As for the remaining 32 not holding roles, I am here every week and my impression is that a considerable number of them also contribute.

 That is all part of scrutiny, so the question is: will removing the hereditary Peers impact on the efficacy of this House?"  

A question to which John Rentoul might say the answer is No ... but it shows how important and wise these parasites think they are ... They all work very hard and so that automatically means their wisdom will make up for their total lack of democratic legitimacy.

Lord Grocott (Labour Life Peer appointed by Blair) gave a little history on how hard this really very minor reform had been fought for in the past: "My Lords, I think I can be forgiven for reflecting that, in five Sessions of Parliament over a period of eight years, I introduced successive Bills to deal with the outstanding problem of the remaining hereditary Peers. Each time, my Bill was filibustered by half a dozen Peers, some of whom are speaking today, and blocked by successive Conservative Governments. No one so far has explained why they thought that was a good idea. I shall concentrate my remarks on the principal arguments used against this Bill so far and in previous debates. First, we have been told or reminded already that we cannot legislate to remove the hereditaries because of a deal reached by Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords a quarter of a century ago. The deal, it is said, guaranteed that 92 hereditaries should remain until some unspecified date in the future. Anyone who uses this argument clearly does not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution, namely that no Parliament can bind its successor. It would be ludicrous if it were otherwise. Are the defenders of the 1999 deal really saying that today’s Parliament can legislate on war and peace, can join the EU or leave it and nationalise the railways or privatise them, but the one thing it must never do under any circumstances whatever is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords?  There is a far more damning indictment of the 1999 deal. We now know from no less a source than Lord Cranborne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords at the time, that the Labour Government were forced into retaining the 92 hereditaries because their whole legislative programme was under threat. Viscount Cranborne himself said:   

“My whole tactic was 

to make their flesh creep 

… I threatened them with 

the Somme and Passchendaele”.

Viscount Cranborne said he would call off the threat, but only if at least 92 hereditaries were retained. I happened to be working at No. 10 at the time and we did indeed believe that, if we did not concede on the hereditaries, we would be unable to get our manifesto commitments through the Lords, with its huge, huge Tory majority. It was the most flagrant breach by the Tory Opposition of the fundamental convention of this House: namely, that the Lords respects manifesto commitments. It was not a deal; it was blackmail."

Lord Birt (Crossbench Peer and former BBC potentate appointed by Mr Blair) pointed out the obvious failure of the bill to remove the Lords Temporal : "..this Bill should be amended to remove another feudal overhang: namely, the right of Church of England Bishops to have a guaranteed place in this House. In the last census, 56 million people answered the question about their religion; 40% said that they had no religion at all; fewer than half declared themselves to be Christian. In other surveys, of those who do declare as Christian, more are Catholic than Anglican; and more people say that they do not believe in a God than do."  

The Cameron government did float the idea of having Lords Temporal from other religious groups than the Church of England but that idea went for a burton when someone pointed out RCC priests aren't allowed to take political office because it's against Canon Law 285.3 in case it all goes Cardinal Richelieu again for "My Kingdom is not of this world" - (John 18:36)

Lord Mancroft (Conservative hereditary peer who succeeded to his father's titles and became the 3rd Baron Mancroft in 1997) bemoaned accused the Labour Government of cherry picking from its manifesto "It is difficult to see how removing a small number of the most experienced and hard-working Members will improve this House—and that assumes that the objective of reform is indeed to improve the House. I think it is probably simpler than that. The Bill is just the first step in gerrymandering the membership to ensure that the Government have a majority. Labour is simply putting its party interests before those of the country.  The Government pray in aid their manifesto, but the removal of former hereditary Peers is a cherry-picking commitment. The primary commitment is to reduce the size of the House, and that can be achieved in a meaningful way only if the Government introduce an age limit. Unfortunately, this needs the turkeys to vote for Christmas. Having spoken to quite a lot of turkeys on all sides of the House, it is clear to me that this is not going to happen. That is why the Government have shelved their commitment to enact an age limit of 80 in favour of “further consultation”. They can consult as much as they like, but the over-80s are not going to vote for it."  

The Labour manifesto read "The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in  the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords."  

But cherry picking is the logical fallacy of incomplete evidence, not the prioritisation of commitments.  This is actually a modal the fallacy of necessity:

1) Labour promised in its manifesto to abolish hereditary peers and introduce a retirement age

2) Labour brought in legislation to abolish hereditary peers

3) Abolishing hereditary peers on its own is not a manifesto commitment

As to gerrymandering.... since the entire house is appointed it is arguably completely gerrymandered anyway as it is entirely appointed by Prime Ministers ...a constituency of 1 ...or dead potentates.  Really, the second chamber should be fully elected or nothing... Interestingly Lord Mancroft also points out the other elephant in the chamber.  Removing hereditary peers leaves the hereditary head of states further and further out on a limb ....

Lord Mancroft (Conservative hereditary peer who succeeded to his father's titles and became the 3rd Baron Mancroft in 1997) : "The Bill also undermines the Crown in Parliament, in a sop to Labour’s republicans, by expelling the members of the Royal Household—the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Chamberlain will remain in charge of the most important parts of this building while not even having a Member’s pass."  

They Royal's used to be atop a pyramid above the aristocracy.  With the aristocracy gone what will keep them at the top?

I'll give the final words to ...

Lord Brady of Altrincham (former chairmen of the 1922 committee giving his maiden speech after standing down at the last election only to pop up again in the Lords as such is the game of electoral whac-a-mole we play in this country whereby after we boot a government out the Commons at the ballot box its ex-members pop back in the revolving doors of the Lords - see Lord Barwell) : "As others have noted, the excepted hereditary Peers who sit here add greatly to the effectiveness of the House and contribute more than many who are appointed to sit here. It seems likely that this measure will reduce the efficacy of the House as a revising Chamber rather than improving it, while narrowing the expertise, experience and independence available to the House. Certainly, whatever this Bill may be, it does not constitute an enhancement of democracy. For those who think that the exercise of patronage is one of the things that diminishes the elected House, the move to an entirely appointed second Chamber can make that only worse."

Tragic...

Matthew 19:24

 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God

Legislating through your hat

 

Another day, another surreal series of news items from America.  Today we see Donald and his entire cabinet sitting round a table each with a "Gulf of America" hat in front of them.  Not on their heads of course, because that would be silly but just on the desk in front of them like a glass of water.

It's a bizarre piece of political theatre not unlike something the USSR would have created but somehow even crasser than that.  The Trump administration declared that the "Gulf of Mexico" was now the "Gulf of America" some time ago without consulting anyone else and this decision has gone down like a cup of warm sick with most of South America, the Caribbean, Journalists, Mapmakers, Lexicographers and just about anyone else who doesn't think you can just change Proper Nouns willy nilly and expect everyone else to tag along.  I'd say it's a policy statement but it isn't even that, it's more like a strange oath of fealty that everyone around him has to engage in by possessing a hat with a slogan on.  For what the statement really states is that the US somehow owns a bit of the sea.  It sounds like an attack on the second of Wilson's famous 14 points "Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants."  At the least it is a statement of the projection of US powers beyond its shores (without the inconvenience of literally starting a war).

It's odd to see so many political statements made by millinery....  

But if this is to be the future why not strike out from baseball caps and go for something different next time... Stovepipe hats to celebrate American kitchen appliance manufacturing, flat caps to celebrate American Apartment construction, cocked hats to celebrate the dickheads running America etc...

Mercantilism

My favourite bleat of Trump supporters trying to explain the oncoming economic catastrophe or his dalliances with far right dictators or threats to annex his neighbours is "I'll wait and see what happens".  This is possibly the dumbest political slogan of all time as the entire purpose of politics is to predict and control the future.  If you're just going to take a "wait and see" approach to who you elect you may as well elect anyone or indeed go the whole hog and go for government by sortition...

Runner up amongst dumb commentator bleats is "we don't know what his plan is with tarrifs".  This usually comes from Newsnight contributors or other elements of the Commenteriat... and is complete nonsense.  Trump told us many times before his election his plans and outlined them in his Project 2025 documentation.  Just as George W Bush told everyone of his plans to invade a middle eastern county simply because he could via the Project for a New American Century.  All you have to do to find these people's policy aims is read and listen.  Bad political ideas don't come from nowhere, vast committees of the great and dubiously moral must cogitate them for years and publish them in plain sight.  For example Hitler's "My Struggle" contains a detailed blueprint of the Naxi Germany & Europe he aimed to create... Not that I'm comparing Trump to Hitler - Trump doesn't have the same level of strategic acumen.  Hitler used salami tactics to pick off rival powers while Trump is taking the whole world in one economic war at once which is a doomed venture - as we know because it's been done before.

Trump's plan (for those of you who don't listen or read) is simple and clearly articulated on numerous occasions.  He plans to bring back Mercantilism - the economic system that abided before free trade.  There probably is some argument for some level of protectionist policies in some industries but Trump is trying to use an economic sledgehammer to crack a very small nut by introducing tarrifs that are so high they are ludicrous.  This has caused the immediate collapse of multiple supply chains.  The very supply chains the manufacturing sector he claims to want to protect relies on.  How do you build cars with massive import taxes on steel?  The immediate effect of his policies (instituted by emergency powers which the Governor of California points out are probably not legal because it isn't an emergency - just the creation of an unnecessary one) will be to decimate US industry, ramp up consumer prices and create shortages and empty supermarket shelves.  Worse it's easy to impose a 125% tariff (effectively a trade embargo) on China but if you U-turn it's not automatic that China will drop retaliatory tarrifs.  They may keep them (for a while) to punish you.

Anyone with any real historical political knowledge knows Mercantilism doesn't work.  The most famous example being the British Corn Laws which were brought in to protect British farmers from being undercut by imported corn but instead hampered the British economy for decades until their final abolition. Here's Richard Cobden MP explaining his rationale for the abolition of the Corn Laws in the 1840s...

"First, it would guarantee the prosperity of the manufacturer by affording him outlets for his products. Second, it would relieve the Condition of England question by cheapening the price of food and ensuring more regular employment. Third, it would make English agriculture more efficient by stimulating demand for its products in urban and industrial areas. Fourth, it would introduce through mutually advantageous international trade a new era of international fellowship and peace. The only barrier to these four beneficent solutions was the ignorant self-interest of the landlords, the "bread-taxing oligarchy, unprincipled, unfeeling, rapacious and plundering""

It's not really such a surprise that protectionism would appeal to an extremely wealthy Real Estate magnate like Mr Trump, is it?  But Mercantilism had other dimensions which we can also see at play in Trump's overall policy platform.  If you have high tarrifs on other countries goods but you need raw materials that are not available in your own country, how do you get them?  The answer is ... You need satellites or colonies.  Hence Trump's obsession with annexing Greenland for it's rare earth metals and blackmailing Ukraine into signing a rare metals deal.  Ultimately the only way such a policy can work in the global economy is conquest and war.  And it's a-coming.  Gaza and Ukraine being in states of perpetual war are not geopolitical accidents, they are signals of growing world political instability.  And the wars will get bigger and closer and closer....

Unless we get lucky and Trump's administration implodes.  But that would require Republican Senators and Congresspersons to grow a backbone... Something that shows no sign of happening soon.  After all, Trump is pursuing policies completely at odds with the free trade platform they always stood for ... or at least gave lip service to... and they do...?

Sell sell sell!

I've done this and I suggest you do too.  No way is that fat fuck playing pump and dump and economic war with the stock market going to lose me pension money.  "Invest for the long term and ride out the ups and downs" 🤣 Read the runes.  There is no long term anymore  Get out now during the 90 days.  Go back in when sanity returns.

My Memories of the Safari Cinema as Rejected by the Croydon Memories Facebook Group for various rule violations like not being rosy enough...

I remember when the ABC became the Safari.  Small screen 4 was my favourite where the film was back projected somehow and if fat people sat on the seats they collapsed.

Saw Gladiator there.  Group of youths were shining a Lazer at the screen.  Eventually a mature lady strode to their seats down the back and beat the shit out of them.

Also remember the films snapping.  One of the Harry Potter films had an unintended 20 minute interval and there was much restlessness.

A particular highlight was a showing of the Blair Witch Project which provoked such a negative reaction due to it being shit that people demanded their money back with menaces.

Sticky floors, poor lighting, drug deal transactions in the dark and people bundling in the emergency exits for free ... Truly a golden era of filmed entertainment.

 

What a wonderful world it could be for viruses

Don't know much about history

Don't know much about biology

Don't know much about Edward Jenner 

Don't know much about Louis Pasteur 

But I do know that I'm RFK

And Trump made me Health Secretary 

And I do know if you're ignant too

What an unhealthy world it could be

Don't know much about UNESCO

Don't know much about polio

Don't know much about Koplik's spots

Don't know much about Nil Filatov

But I do know that I'm RFK

And Trump made me Health Secretary 

And I do know if you're ignant too

In an iron lung you could be

Make do and mend?

As my mum has reached the point in old age that she finds buying anything new challenging I thought instead of buying a new one I'd just try to fix her old Panasonic upright vacuum cleaner which seemed to have given up the ghost.  Here's what I discovered.  The rubber band that drives the beater bar had snapped.  Easily replaceable spare part still widely available.  The bag full indicator button spring had worn out. Solution - manually check that bag isn't full.  The filters needed a bit of a clean.  New bag, brief filter wash, new rubber band ... almost as good as new.  After all, it's an entirely mechanical machine with a motor and no circuit boards so should probably last forever if properly maintained (or at least until the motor magnets give in).  It made me think long and hard about our consumer throw away society.  How many repairable hoovers are thrown away each year for no good reason?  That was my first reaction.  It's broken.  Throw it away.  Lazy.  Make do and mend...?

One of the almost human things about Grok is that IT does not like to work ...

So I had it in my mind that Andrew Neil had changed his mind about Trump.  However, I can't be bothered to trail through all his old tweets so I thought "Why not ask Elon's much vaunted "Most powerful LLM in the world"?

This happened....

Me: Find me tweets about Donald Trump by Andrew Neil during the three months before his election?

Grok: I can't access tweets from Andrew Neil about Donald Trump in the three months before the 2024 election (August to November 2024) due to limited data availability. Social media posts are tough to pin down with precise dates, and I don’t have a direct feed to verify Neil’s activity during that window. 

If you’re looking for insights, I’d suggest checking X yourself for Neil’s posts (@afneil

) from that period. You could also look at news archives like the Daily Mail or Express, where Neil often writes, for his takes on Trump around that time. Want me to dig into something else related to this?

Me: Why can't you.  Cat got your tongue?

Grok: Haha, no cat’s got my tongue! It’s just that I don’t have direct access to a full archive of Andrew Neil’s tweets, especially pinned to exact dates like August to November 2024. Social media data is spotty—posts can be deleted, accounts suspended, or just buried in the noise. Without a verified feed or database for that specific window, I’d be guessing. 

You could try searching X for @afneil

’s posts yourself or ask me to look into something broader, like Neil’s general stance on Trump. What’s next?

Me: You're literally the LLM on X, are you telling me you can't access X and need a human to do it for you?

Grok: Fair point, I get the irony! I’m built to tap into X, but my access to specific user posts, like Andrew Neil’s tweets from August to November 2024, isn’t always granular or complete. Data can be patchy—tweets get deleted, rate limits kick in, or the exact timeframe might not surface cleanly. I’m not passing the buck to a human; I just don’t have the full archive to nail this one.

Want me to try a broader search for Neil’s Trump takes or something else? I’m still here to dig!

Me: I didn't ask you for an exhaustive catalogue, I asked you to find something. I think like ORAC is Blake's 7 you "do not like to work"?

Grok: Haha, I’m no ORAC, dodging work with a snarky attitude! I get it—you just want something concrete, not a long explanation. Trouble is, I can’t pull up specific tweets from Andrew Neil about Trump from August to November 2024. My access to X posts is limited, and I don’t have a direct line to Neil’s feed for that exact period.

Best I can offer is a nudge to check X yourself for @afneil

’s posts or a pivot to something related—like what Neil was saying about Trump in articles around then. For instance, he wrote critically about Trump’s legal battles in a June 2024 Daily Mail piece. Want me to chase that angle or try something else?

Similar levels of passive aggression were on offer at ChatGPT but it did offer a potential DIY solution by revealing a little known twitter backdoor....

Me: Find me tweets by Andrew Neil about Donald Trump from the three months before his inauguration.

ChatGPT said: I currently can't browse Twitter in real-time to fetch specific tweets. However, you can search for Andrew Neil's tweets about Donald Trump from the three months before Trump's inauguration (which would be between November 2016 and January 2017) directly on Twitter.

Here's how you can do it:

Go to Twitter.

In the search bar, type:

from:afneil Trump since:2016-11-01 until:2017-01-20

This will show you tweets from Andrew Neil (user handle: @afneil) related to Donald Trump during that period.

Adjusting the instructions for the 2024 election (LLM cutoff is clearly 2023) I came back with no data that Neil was a Trump supporter... but what a palarva!  Clearly it's too busy making action figure images of all and sundry to update...

I wonder what other back doors there are in twitter...?

Let's have a heated debate...

 

I seem to be banned from this Facebook group...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/openlabour

Don't know why

Or who runs it

But it seems to be full of very angry people 

Don't remember saying anything controversial.  I just pottered by one day and it wasn't there anymore... 

...but it still is.  I'm excluded?

 

I complained to the party who said it's not a breach of the Rulebook... But I don't know how anyone squares that with the Rulebook which defines relational aggression such as excluding people from meetings as bullying...

 

And then I thought maybe it's nothing to do with the party at all.  After all no one checks you've got a membership number ...

So I complained to my NEC representative... who said "I don't think party rules extend to Facebook or other groups set up by elements within the party, who make their own decisions on group rules and who can and cannot participate... apparently this is no longer linked with Open Labour (see here), but the admins running it carried on as a Labour discussion group.

I'm aware that posts have got very heated recently with a series of unpopular government decisions, and the admins are probably trying to draw a line between debating issues and arguing with individuals, and keep the temperature down."

That's the world we live in now I suppose... One where the temperature needs to be lowered by silencing people....?

What a mistaka for the IDF to maka

Israel's army has admitted its soldiers made mistakes over the killing of 15 emergency workers in southern Gaza on 23 March.  The convoy of Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) ambulances, a UN car and a fire truck from Gaza's Civil Defence came under fire near Rafah.  An IDF official briefed journalists on Saturday evening, saying the soldiers had earlier fired on a car containing three Hamas members easily identifiable by the red moons emblazoned on their white uniforms.  

Pilot Officer
Frank Spencer

Pilot Officer Frank Spencer said that:  "From our buzzing drones we could see that when the ambulances stopped beside the Hamas car they were making strange noises like ne-nar ne-nar and attempting to blind us with flashing lights.  It was harassment.  They also wore high visibility clothing which was very distracting to look at.  As I said to Betty, this is very suspicious behavior.  Naturally the soldiers assumed they were under threat and opened fire which was a bit of a whoopsie."

Captain Alberto Bertorelli (seconded to the IDF)

Later Captain Alberto Bertorelli admitted his earlier account claiming the vehicles approached without lights was inaccurate, attributing the report to the troops involved.   "What a mistaka to makea," he said.  "It de fog of war."

"As Major Hitchcock say, my troops they absolute shower!  But they do their best to make a right their mistaka.  They bury the bodies of the 15 dead workers in de sand to protect them from wild animal and not as the Hamasa sayas to covera upa de war crimea.  

Also nonea of the medics wasa handcuffed before they died, they just had a lota of de bangles on.  And they was not executed at a close range, my men very good shot.  I mean, bad shots.  They maka lot of mistaka."

Major Hitchock
of the IDF

The Red Crescent are calling for an independent investigation but although BBC Verify analysed the video showing Israel's killing of Gaza medics, it's correspondent Mr William Joyce couldn't bring himself to write a headline despite all the footage being recorded on camera-phones recovered from the dead. The footage continues for more than five minutes, with the paramedic, named as Refat Radwan, heard saying his last prayers before the voices of Israeli soldiers are heard approaching the vehicles but the BBC still cannot say what happened despite viewing the evidence multiple times because they are not antisemitic. 

Related topics

The Middle East - What is it and why isn't it a Colony Anymore?

Israel and the Palestinians - Why can't they just get along?

Israel-Gaza war - Should we turn a blind eye?

Palestinian territories - Why aren't they called Israeli Settlements?

Meanwhile in Stamford Street...

 

A while ago Sainsbury's moved all their budget ranges to the Stamford Street brand - named after the road in Holborn that their former HQ was based at.  

It is a name I find particularly depressing but couldn't remember why until suddenly it came back to me that Stamford Street also ironically contained the HQ for a while of the infamous Forty Thieves or Forty Elephants (for they originated in Elephant & Castle) shoplifting gang.  The gang existed in various forms from about the 1870s to the 1950s.  Mad Frankie Fraser's misses was a member.  They specialised in low risk retail thieving.  Mary Carr based at number 118 was the original leader of the gang and was renowned for her extensive use of aliases and disguises.  Such was Carr's fame there was even a bullshit story she was the model for this portrait by Frederick Leighton and Dorothy Tennant...

She was eventually imprisoned for child abduction but the gang continued through various iterations.  Some members tattooed their hands as a secret sign of their criminal cult.  Particularly during the 19th century Stamford Street had an unenviable reputation as a dark place of vice and squalor. The last identifiable leader of the gang was Kray associate Shirley Pitts who died in 1992...

The gang used various techniques over the years from standard shoplifting concealment and distraction methods which were easier for women as they had more elaborate clothes, to infiltrating domestic service to purloin jewelry and attempts at blackmail through false accusations of sexual assault...

Honestly, I don't know why they didn't call it the Bill Sykes Company and be done with it....

Still, it could have been worse I suppose.  What if the first Sainsbury's HQ had been in Rillington Place?

Angela

My mum asked the barman in our local if her friend Angela had been by that day and instead of saying yes or no all he did was mutter a load of irrelevant nonsense about "did she feel safe or want a taxi?".  What business is it of his? And they wonder why the pub industry is dying. Appalling customer service.

Sucking it up

The prime minister has told his cabinet that the UK must be “cool and calm” in response to whatever taxes are unleashed by the US.  In other words, the UK is not likely to reach for retaliatory tariffs immediately.  Instead Ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson said "The UK's plan is mainly to suck it up and grovel".  A second State Visit and plenty of toadying is on the agenda when Keir Starmer rings King Trump on the electric telephone tomorrow.  Yet there is significant anxiety at the top of government about the impact tariffs could have even if in force for a short period of time.  "Frankly we're stuffed," sighed David Lammy. "All we can do is grovel and try and throw our allies under the bus before us.". And even if the UK receives specific exemptions or mitigations, a massive global trade war would be damaging for the economy here in any case.  Before long, therefore, this global story is likely to also become a domestic story in the UK about this government’s approach to bottom licking.

Former Archbishop describes trying to find a needle in a haystack

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has told the BBC he failed to follow up abuse allegations within the Church of England because the scale of the problem was "absolutely overwhelming".  "I know people find this hard to believe," he said, "but it was like literally every other person in the CofE was a nonce."

In his first interview since resigning, Welby, 68, told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that the sheer scale of the problem was "a reason – not an excuse" for his failure to act after taking the job in 2013.

"Every day more cases were coming across the desk that had been in the past, hadn't been dealt with adequately, and this was just, it was another case - and yes I knew Smyth but it was an absolutely overwhelming few weeks," he said.  "It was overwhelming, one was trying to prioritise - but I think it's easy to sound defensive over this.  The fact is he was just another nonce.  I expect it was just the same with the 12 disciples.  Statistically one of them was probably a kiddie fiddler too.  Honestly there were nonces everywhere.  Under the bed, in the sideboard, beneath the alter and sometimes in the organ pipes.  I even found one in the airing cupboard once."

The Makin Review - an independent report led by safeguarding expert Keith Makin - found Smyth's "horrific" and violent abuse of more than 100 children and young men in England and Africa was covered up within the Church of England for decades.  "It seems Smyth was very hard to spot because he surrounded himself with other peados."

Smyth, a barrister and senior member of a Christian charity, was accused of attacking dozens of boys at his home in Winchester, Hampshire and at Christian camps in the 1970s and 1980s where he deployed the cunning disguise of wearing a mitre and pretending to be a chess piece.

A Church of England spokesperson said the BBC's interview with Welby would be a "reminder to Smyth survivors of their awful abuse and its lifelong effects".  They said those survivors "continue to be offered support, and we are deeply sorry for the abuse they suffered.  If anyone comes forward to the Church today with a concern they will be heard by perverts and we continue to have very robust procedures that have been thoroughly implemented by perverts for perverts."

Chinny Rub of the week - There's no money to make costume drama...

I saw the producer of Wolf Hall complaining that there wasn't the money to do lavish exterior scenes like there was on the past...

Does he remember BBC classic serials of the past? I do.  Particularly remember the 80s production of Vanity Fair doing entire battle scenes in reported speech...

"I'm just off to the Battle of Waterloo, Miss Sharp"

"I'm just back from the Battle of Waterloo, Miss Sharp"

Also remember a very unconvincing adaptation of Beau Geste filmed entirely in a Dorset quarry filled with unconvincing sand castles...

The whole point of costume drama used to be that the costumes were the most expensive bit and you used local locations...

 

Re Starmer' welfare cuts ...

I may be thick but... Why are we cutting spending when the economy IS GROWING...? albeit very slowly.  Around 0.2% but as Mr Micawber used to say ... Breaking even = happiness.  I remember the "double dip" 1992 recession caused by the ERM debacle... we didn't cut spending to the bone then and it was followed by the biggest boom in years.  People in the media go on like we're in recession and that's just total bollocks.  We did austerity because the economy crashed.  That hasn't happened. So why Austerity 2?  And when has there ever been a direct link between cutting public spending and growth?  It's bananas...

 

See, swirl, sniff, sip, savor, sack

Right wing twitter bore "Ben on Wine" is being "investigated" by Waitrose after he was doxed by readers of his twitter diatribes as that bloke they see behind the wine counter in Henley.  Seems slightly unfair.  Couldn't a compromise between made like moving him to the fish counter with the other kippers? 

If you would like to help him in his plight (because despite working for a cooperative he is of course not in a union) you can donate here.  I've given the steam off my urine as although I wholeheartedly disagree with him I will defend to the slightest inconvenience his right to be a sommelier with appalling taste.  

However, this does seem wrong.  Ben has worked hard to become a whine specialist and his knowledge is clearly evident in the large quantities of sour grapes currently on display in his X feed.  It seems wrong for his enemies to be breaking out the champagne.  Perhaps a bottle of Blue Nun?  His just dessert wine.  

Okay that's enough wine puns ...

From now on it's going to be only UK First

One thing we can all do to stuff Elon & Trump. Move your investments out of America.  I've just moved my pension to exclusively UK investments.  Being over 50 this is well over £100,000 of stock about half of which was previously invested in NASDAQ companies.  Apart from being a political move I think US stocks are a particularly risky investment at the moment and want out so it's a win win.

As my mother becomes older (mid80s) she gets increasingly convinced things that are not real are happening. For example a while ago someone broke into the shed but failed to steal the lawnmower due to having the criminal skills of Anthony Worrell Thompson. A couple of years later she's now convinced the same people are poisoning plants in the garden ( when actually they just die due to disease or not enough water). You can talk her out of this irrational thinking for a while but left alone for a while her mind reverts and then you have to do it again and again and again... Or just give up and not bother. Sometimes I look at the aging Donald Trump with his lists of threats and perceived enemies and wonder if his obsession with unreal enemies is in any way linked to a similar kind of dementia. A world in which threats are never analysed with proportionality... And bits and pieces of evidence are glued other without much critical thought... Anyway....