Jeremy's Den

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.

(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.

(Dolly Parton)

For a whole generation of Americans in the troubled 1960s, the saying went that everybody remembered where they were when they heard that John Kennedy had been shot. For the current generation in the troubled 2020s, the saying will probably be that everybody will remember forever where they were when they heard that Dolly Parton had died. But JFK became a legend and an icon after his untimely death, while Dolly became one in her own lifetime. She was a perfect illustration of the many contradictions of the Disunited States of America, as even MAGA supporters worshipped her when she was the perfect antipode and antidote to Trump. When he surrounded himself with anti-vaxxers and science deniers, she funded the development of Moderna's COVID vaccine. When an obsessive fixation on the censorship of "wrong" books became one of the trademarks of Trumpism, her Imagination Library delivered 332 million books to children in deprived communities worldwide. When Trump associated himself with masculinist extremists, she was a campaigner for women's rights and gay rights. She leaves behind a legacy that will live on long after Trump is gone and forgotten.

Now, if we rewind to a month ago, I gave you an extensive view of a YouGov poll exploring our views of NATO, the USA, the world and beyond. It was actually part of a wider trans-NATO poll on those same issues, also including a survey of Australia, who are not a member of NATO but of ANZUS, to spice up the broth. The link between all these countries is that they are all enrolled in a military alliance including the USA, and all have a fuckload of reasons to question the USA's true commitment to these alliances, especially since the Orange Baboon's return to the White House. Discontent and distrust obviously started to grow during his first term, but Joe Biden did little to address these concerns, and it has become massively worse since January 2025 when Trump "brought his whole true self to work". Despite Trump's inconsistencies and betrayals, public opinions nevertheless still have a favourable view of NATO, and still see these US-inclusive alliances an important part of their national security.

It's probably more an act of faith than a totally reasoned opinion, and cracks are visible here and there. It is interesting to see that US public opinion is the least supportive of NATO, which fits with other polls that regularly find a quarter or more of them wanting to leave NATO, thrice as many as in the UK. It is also revealing that the USA have the lowest proportion of people finding NATO important to their own national security. There probably still exists some magical belief in an almighty national military in the USA, despite multiple signs that it is weaker than Trump and his sidekick Pete Hegseth want the world to believe. The most obvious sign is that the US Navy was forced to remove the USS George Washington from Asiatic waters to relieve the cursed USS Abraham Lincoln, as they are unable to deploy more than four carriers simultaneously, when their actual need is five, and their resources are stretched to the limit by the Orange Baboon's asinine war on Iran. This obvious delusion is confirmed by the massive number of Americans who are confident in their Forces' readiness to defend their country and its interests.

Low confidence in the Armed Forces' readiness is quite widespread outwith the USA and totally justified. This is the unavoidable consequence of thirty years blindly accepting the doxa of the end of history and the dividends of peace. It has delivered what the Soviet Union and the CND always dreamed of and never achieved, unilateral disarmament of the West, eroding both our willingness to fight and our means to do it. Even the successive stages of Russian genocidal imperialism were not enough of a wake-up call. Cowardly governments hid behind the oven-ready narrative of appeasement, that we would neither provoke nor escalate, when the Russian Reich under Nosferatu did nothing but provoke and escalate. They have tested us at every opportunity for fourteen years, between the aggression of Georgia in 2008 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and we constantly failed the test. Ironically, the only one who did not was French President François Hollande, when he cancelled the sale of two state-of-the-art amphibious assault ships to the Born-Again Soviet Union after the invasion of Crimea and Donbas. If Nosferatu's Navy had had them in the Black Sea in February 2022, we would be talking of Ukraine in the past tense.

Everybody is always stupid somewhere along the line. Just tiny details, that’s all that it takes.

(George Castle, Law & Order UK, 2009)

Every human being has to be born ignorant and, for a time, live in ignorance. But if he remains ignorant that is his own fault.

(Earl Nightingale, 1969)

We already know that a conclusive majority of the Great British Public opine that our level of defence spending is inadequate and insufficient to cover all our needs and secure all our commitments. But public opinions in other countries seem reluctant to admit that their own governments are spending too little on national security. It is understandable in Poland, where the defence budget has already been increased to 4% of GDP, so many have every reason to believe it is enough for now. It is also understandable in the USA, where the Trump administration want to increase the defence budget by 50%, but have never laid out any credible plan about how to spend such huge sums, except on obsolete vanity projects, totally unfit to meet the new challenges to national security and designed only to cuddle the Orange Baboon's galaxy-sized ego. You can also again detect the influence of faux pacifist Russia-appeasing politicos in France and Germany, which will probably become more prominent as France is in the runup to a very uncertain presidential election, and Germany is still reeling in the shockwave of the victory of neo-Nazi allies of the Russian Reich in Sachsen-Anhalt.

Now, let's hypothesise that we do agree on the necessity and urgency to increase defence spending, and have just to decide where defence funding will come from. YouGov put just three very predictable options on the table: increase taxes, increase borrowing, slash welfare and benefits. Unsurprisingly, tax hikes are the least popular option, as the whole world has been struck by an epidemic of taxphobia, even in countries that are arguably under-taxed. The question also implies that we're talking only about existing taxes, when the remedy should be to incite our governments to think outside the box and consider new modes of taxation like a wealth tax or a tax on AI, which have popular support. Since we have also been groomed to go into anaphylactic shock when we hear the word "borrowing", and are totally spooked by the very overrated prospect of an out-of-control national debt, the only option left, and the favourite across the board, is to slash benefits. Which is tantamount to deliberately pushing our government into a minefield without a safe path out. We already have a preview of this here, with all the outrage about possibly repealing the State Pension triple lock, even temporarily. We are not hell bent on opposing cuts, we just don't want them to happen. Go figure.

Asking pensioners to contribute more, whatever the trick used, is actually a no-go zone in most countries, as pensioners are the demographic most likely to go out to vote, making governments reluctant to alienate them especially in election years. So all that's left is a strategy of a thousand cuts, targeting a whole array of arguably more vulnerable demographics that are less likely to vote. We would not have this kind of debate if governments ceased to follow the dogma that the budget has to be a zero-sum game to avoid ruffling any easily-offended feathers, and also overcame their reluctance to go searching for dosh where it is, the bank accounts of the 1%. After all, if a convicted felon and a foreign-based crypto-crook can contribute £36m each to the British Union of Fascists, they can contribute at least as much to the defence of the country they pretend to love. John Healey just has to send out the sniffer dogs on the money trail, or have we switched to sniffer drones these days? But now we have another brand new option on the table, Germany paying for Trident. No shit, mates. YouGov speed-polled it and found we actually support it.

It's actually less simplistic than that, which YouGov reflected in the exact wording of the question, asking if we would support or oppose making a commitment to protect Germany with the UK nuclear arsenal under the same terms by which we would protect ourselves, if Germany contributes to the cost of the UK's nuclear weapons. It is not a joke, as the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz opened the door to it himself, and it does sound like a fucking serious proposal with no apparent strings attached. This has to be considered very seriously by our government, as it shows Germany's will to emancipate themselves from the American "nuclear umbrella" and seek European partners, even outwith the EU. It would also be a good PR win for Andy Burnham, when lame-duck Emmanuel Macron is offering France's "advanced nuclear protection" to Estonia ad Finland. Then there is the other part of Merz's scenario, which was not mentioned by YouGov. Germany could take part in the design and manufacturing of the next generation of ballistic missiles, which does not imply the transfer of nuclear technology, just sharing the desired features of the carrier. This is important because, should the Trident deal with the USA be repealed out of spite by Trump, we have no fallback option as the French M51 missiles do not fit into the Trident launch tubes fitted on our submarines. A new sur mesure design thusly makes complete sense if we want to liberate ourselves from the dominance of an unreliable partner and show some teeth to an increasingly aggressive enemy that is now openly attempting to assassinate Western emissaries visiting Ukraine and carry out terrorist attacks in Europe.

People who think somebody’s out to get them are usually right.

(John Munch, Law & Order, 1999)

You can’t just refuse to believe something might be true because it’s too explosive.

(Ravindra Sangvhi, Secret Service, 2026)

We know the world is dangerous and unpredictable. But a general sensation of threat is not enough, as it will only lead you into paranoia. To repeal the threat, you have to identify it. Then your response is no longer paranoid, it becomes rational and focused. YouGov asked their international panels to do just that, and name who they think is currently the main threat to world peace and our own safety. As you might expect, the replies are quite diverse, but not necessarily in the way you would have predicted. There is a widespread feeling that Russia is the main threat, and it is fully justified by the public statements of the Russian government officials themselves. Quite logically, the closer you are to the borders of the Russian Reich, the stronger the feeling is. But it works both ways, as shown by the Canadian replies, picking the USA as the main threat. The closer you are to them, the less you trust them. Karma, mates.

But feeling something in the air does not mean the threat is immediate. So YouGov followed up with a question about the likelihood of a full scale military attack from a hostile country in the next ten years. Their words, not mine, and this is very specific. It does not mean this is the most likely scenario, as recent events have proved that classic full scale military attack may not be the panacea it once was, when Britannia ruled the waves and Adolf's Panzerdivisionen roamed free across the plains of Russia. Just ask Donald how things are going in Iran, or Vlad about Ukraine. Or don't, as both would lie. Anyway, there are many more subtle ways to deliver a lethal attack these days, and there will be even more of those in ten years, so the point is probably moot already. Some countries do not really believe in an incoming attack, including us. But some also hint at some unease and anxiety, most significantly Poland. After all, they have learned the hard way that anything can happen and nothing is ever quiet on the Eastern Front.

Are those who don't fear an attack deluded or overconfident? Surely a bit of both, as was the case in the 1930s. And how do we reconcile this with the rather low levels of confidence in the ability of our armed forces to defend us against foreign aggression, and our reluctance to fund their reconstruction by all means necessary? Then I guess that the current international situation is as baffling as Vulcan chess, and no specific question will allow us to unveil the entirety of our thoughts about it. But confusion is a deadly combination when the two main threats are a greedy demented buffoon and a paranoid mass-murdering psychopath. This is why our nations need leaders with a proper sense of direction, and a perspective extending beyond navigating the ups and downs of public opinion until the next election. I am not sure anybody has got one of them these days. Quite the opposite, actually, I am sure nobody has got one, not even us.

I saw the storm clouds gathering in a maelstrom. For those not wise enough to pull their sails in, certain destruction awaits. I’m trying to say, this isn’t good.

(Eliot Davis Aden, CSI, 2011)

There was a time, an aeon or two in the past, when the order of things was different and rules were written to last.

(Patti Bristol, Murder, She Wrote, 1985)

Part of our reluctance to fully acknowledge the likelihood of a Russian attack, which is increasing by the day, is our belief that being part of the largest military alliance this side of the Urals somehow protects us. This may well be overconfident if you factor in Trump's willingness to weaken the United States' commitment to the defence of Europe, because he needs an unforeseen amount of firepower to make his absurd war against Iran still look marginally serious, when it has already turned into a fucking farce. The international replies to YouGov's poll clearly show our massive loss of trust in the USA, which is the direct result of their current unpredictability and sudden shifts of priorities. This is also the ricochet effect of Pete Hegseth purging the higher echelons of the US military, on the basis of loyalty to the Supreme Guide rather than competence. The gap with our expectations of help from other NATO allies speaks for itself. Even the American public seem to have realised that something went fucking wrong, as their expectations of help from NATO have gone down to an exceptionally low level.

The wide gap between our expectations of help from the USA and help from our other MATO allies is fully justified by the Orange Baboon's attitude since he was unfortunately returned to the White House by Elon Muck's blood money. We obviously can't trust Trump so long as his vision of NATO is a protection racket worthy of Lucky Luciano. There is a clear mirror image of the previous question in our willingness to go help an ally under attack. Here too, the gap between our willingness to help a European nation and our willingness to help the USA is unprecedented. This is totally Trump's fault, and he may even see this as evidence of mission accomplished, as he can argue it only vindicates his narrative about the ungrateful allies and all the reasons he has to prioritise confrontation with China and business deals with Russia,

These results totally make the case for a new alliance, no longer dominated by the USA and expanded to include our allies in Asia. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea. In many ways. the Coalition Of The Willing is a blueprint for this future ideal alliance, even if a shitload of obstacles must be moved out of the way first. The first would be to strongarm the USA into accepting a lesser role and still staying in, as we realistically cannot hope to make our alliance credible without them. Then, and simultaneously, we would have to resolve the contradictions and oppositions between member states on core issues. Even on support to Ukraine, which should be the prime domain of agreement, there are strong differences, mostly driven by domestic politics. It does not get better when you compound it with the weight of egos, like Emmanuel Macron spiralling into diplomatic hyper-activity to make the final months of his second headless-chicken term look less lame-duck. Adjusting to this Brave New World is a fucking challenge, which Keir Starmer was reluctant to face head-on, still entangled in the thought patterns of the Old World. This is where Andy Burnham being a blank slate, totally devoid of diplomatic experience, may actually be an asset. He has already shown his willingness and ability to deviate from the script, and he should be encouraged to carry on.

But things have really changed now. They'll never be the same. And even those who wish now know they can't ever go back again.

(Patti Bristol, Murder, She Wrote, 1985)

Through your actions, you have shamed us before our children, humiliated America on the world stage and, worst of all, divided our nation.

(Admiral William H. McRaven, to Donald Trump, July 2026)

Now you may wonder what the fuck the USA have done to deserve all this. Simples, mates. In a world of rogue states, Trump has turned the USA into the roguest of all, which has escaped the sagacity of only those with tunnel vision through stars-and-stripes tinted glasses. There is a widespread consensus that the USA under Trump are more likely to wander into some military adventures abroad, even if the Iran War has already painfully highlighted the unexpected limitations and weaknesses of the US military, which make any military intervention far more risky than we were led to believe in the past. There is also a widespread consensus, even in the USA, that Trump has turned his country into a less trustworthy partner for their erstwhile trusting allies. There is no surprise in these assessments, but it is reassuring to see that our public opinions keep their eyes wide open about Trump's shenanigans.

There is also a strong feeling, except in Poland, that the USA have become less friendly to our own nations, and more accommodating with the Russian Reich. Jared Kushner's public statement about seeking a win-win deal to end the war in Ukraine, one taking Russia's aspirations into account, is just the latest evidence of the magnitude of the betrayal. Trumpistan's oligarchs are still openly acting as the Russian Reich's business agents, in fake negotiations led by crooks whose sole aim is to let blood money flood their bank accounts in the Caymans. Public opinions are not blind, even if governments pretend to be as they don't want to poke the Baboon too much, feart as they are of a hissy tantrum of retaliation. The obvious follow-up question is how far we think the intimidation and betrayal can go, and the obvious answer is that we fucking don't know. But that we have every reason to distance ourselves from the USA, no matter the short-term cost, because it is the smartest long-term policy.

Now there is another ongoing event we should watch very closely. Xi Jinping's second state visit to the USA, an unprecedented occurrence for any Chinese leader. Trump has gone to extraordinary, and also unprecedented, lengths to honour and cuddle his guest in the cheap nouveau riche setting of what's left of the White House. Trumpistan needs China's help to tame Iran and avoid losing face in their asinine war. They also need deals to procure rare earths from China, those they failed to plunder from Ukraine last year. The Orange Baboon is also openly calling for cooperation with China to develop the next variants of AI, the perfect fit for their shared Nineteen-Eighty-Fourish vision of the future. None of this is reassuring, and not just for Europe, even if cynical agreements between the deranged authoritarian and the dictatorial bureaucrat can't spawn anything good for us. Those who should be worrying most now are Taiwan, as Trump sees them as a bargaining chip in his transactional diplomacy, and has already frozen $14bn of military aid. He will not have any second thoughts about sacrificing them to reach a deal with Xi. Once a traitor, always a traitor.

When my gut starts to growl, it's a sure sign there's a fox loose in the china shop.

(Avery Mendelsohn, Murder, She Wrote, 1985)

additional lyrics © Dolly Parton, 2002

You saw him. He can’t connect the dots. He doesn’t grasp that other people exist apart from his needs.

(Emil Skoda, Law & Order, 1997)

Has Trump transmogrified the USA into a force for good or a force for bad? Just forget the moralistic and vaguely religious overtones and face reality. Everybody thinks the USA have become more of a force for bad under Trump's reign, even a majority of Americans. This is definitely consistent with the Orange Baboon's atrocious favourability ratings all across the civilised world, and with less than a quarter of Americans still self-identifying as MAGA, the decerebrated Trump zealots. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Trump has dragged his country down into an abyss of malfeasance when we see the United States in cahoots with the two worst mass-murdering genocidal imperialists since 1945, Russia and Israel. Trump has made his country the leader of a revamped Axis Of Evil which is just as bad as the Axis Of Evil of the 1930s, Germany, Italy and Japan. The worst part is that he has done that because he is manipulated by two smarter brains who know how to exploit all of his weakness, Putin and Netanyahu. The organ grinders of the Orange Baboon, the worst freak act in the Alpha Quadrant.

Will things get back to normal after Trump is gone? Even Americans think something has been irreparably broken, and only the French and Poles are deluded enough to think normal operations will resume. Bear in mind that the lurch towards authoritarian illiberalism did not start with Trump. It started generations earlier, with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Patriot Act of 2001 and the USA Freedom Act of 2015. The USA did not need Trump to become arrogant, paranoid and exclusionary. They're like the proverbial scorpion, it's in their nature. The Orange Baboon just pushed the system to its limits, allowing the FBI and ICE to act like the FSB or the Gestapo, as his own private militias. Any future President could play Trump Revisited, because all the tools have been here for years and years, and the people won't object to their use if you say the magic words. National Security. Trump also set a precedent of complete contempt for alliances and international commitments, leaving behind a trail of betrayal, harassment and intimidation of allies, that any future President will follow if they see benefits for themselves in it. And this is why we cannot, and must not, trust the USA ever again, or handle them with anything but the deepest suspicion. We did not create this situation, they did. We are not the traitors, they are.

Now we have a new situation on our hands, that we could feel in the air long before tonight. Is Argentina getting ready to reclaim Las Malvinas, or illegally invade the Falklands again, depending on which side of the Britannic Ocean you look at it from? And, if Chainsaw Milei decided to go for it, would the Orange Baboon help him? It is quite revealing of the state of decay of the imaginary "special relationship" that these are legitimate questions that have to be asked and answered. Red Ed told the Argies to fuck off, because that's what a Foreign Secretary does, but he was just quoting principles, not thumping his chest with the promise of instant military action. Does he have doubts about the feasibility of a reboot of 1982? Well, probably. YouGov obviously had to speed-poll that, from their British panel only as this is strictly our fucking business, and the results are interesting. We are cautiously confident, though not fully convinced, that we could fend off the Argies. which is probably true as their military has decayed more than ours since the days of Thatcher and Galtieri. In doubt, we could always ask the French to lend a hand, and grant them joint custody of les Malouines in return. And we are also pretty sure the USA would not help us. Trump has said he wouldn't, so we should definitely believe him this time.

We have now reached a new stage in the relationship that may have been special once, as Andy Burnham has volunteered to be the Orange Baboon's next punching bag for offering unwavering support for Ukraine at the United Nations, and should take his cues from Mark Carney. You may have missed the bit where Trump took exception at Québec labelling groceries in French, which is unfair to US shitfood manufacturers, but Marky Mark didn't and, in French with an odd mix of English and Québecois accent, pretty much told Trump d'aller se faire foutre. Which instantly prompted the Orange Baboon to rétropédaler and proclaim his amour du Français. We can only wish we had un Premier Ministre aussi couillu que Carney, as it is what we need to stand our ground against the temporary occupant of the White House. Bear in mind there are just 119 days left before J.D. Vance can depose the Orange Baboon, per Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, without losing his right to two full terms of his own per Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment. Do not ask for whom the clock is ticking, Donald, it ticks for thee.

He may be legally sane, but it doesn’t mean he’s not crazy.

(Danielle Melnick, Law & Order, 2000)

Ours is a war of attrition. That was a warming shot across your bow. Don’t be deceived by my gentle manner, I beg of you.

(Major Anatoly Karzov, Murder, She Wrote, 1984)

Since we are not formally at war with Russia, for now, even if Russia is very much at war with us, our most potent weapon remains the sanctions. Umbrella economic sanctions against the state. Individual targeted sanctions against select oligarchs sitting at the heart of the system. The flaw is that we have always been extremely cautious about the width and depth of these sanctions because of, ye ken, international law or whatever. Business interests too, obviously, mostly on the US side even under Biden, because we did not want to hit anybody else by ricochet. But we did, as India and China have hugely benefited from our sanctions. Buying Russian crude oil at bargain prices and selling it to us at market price. India is even now buying Russian crude oil at half the market price, refining it, and selling the refined oil to Russia at market price, since Russian refineries have been phased out by Ukraine. In the meanwhile, public opinions still support sanctions, but cracks in their resolve are showing. When three quarters of your population is supporting the sanctions, you are on pretty sold ground. But when it goes down and comes dangerously close to just half, you feel it's more quicksandy and start questioning the policy, much to Nosferatu's delight.

Our main problem is that our governments are obsessed with the rule of law, always playing it by the book, shackling our hands behind our backs with rules the Kremlin's Nosferatu does not recognise. As long as we do that, the potency of our actions is not stronger than a placebo's. We are fighting the Death Star with slingshots while Nosferatu is unleashing his Loups de Guerre every day and night against Ukraine. I am old enough to remember, and so are you, that one of the goals of the sanctions, back in 2022, was to destroy the Russian Reich's economy. Zelenskyy is doing a better job now with his own "long range sanctions". And now Nosferatu is provoking us by seizing European assets in Russia. Not freezing but seizing, confiscating, stealing, nicking. While Belgium still won't let anyone seize the frozen Russian assets in their custody, €258bn or £220bn of them, and give them to Ukraine. Because, ye ken, the fucking rule of law. Meanwhile, the Fifth Columns from the far-left and far-right are pressuring European nations to stop the flow of aid to Ukraine because it is "money better spent at home". Sadly, amidst severe economic problems, they manage to convince sizeable parts of public opinions to lobby their governments against the sanctions. And it works even better when elections are looming on the Event Horizon.

You know what is the strongest evidence that our sanctions are working? Trump is trying to convince us to lift them, to clear the way for his family's business deals with Russia, and he wouldn't do that if they weren't working, would he? This is why the legitimacy of the sanctions should never be questioned, no matter the economic consequences at home. What we have lost to rising fuel prices since 2022 is petty cash compared to what we would lose if Russia won in Ukraine and felt emboldened to pursue its dreams of Lebensraum elsewhere in Europe. This is why we should never allow any argument, economic or other, to distract us from the relentless and rigorous enforcement of sanctions, which can only really work if they are supported by a united Europe. But the EU have now set a very questionable and dangerous precedent, weakening the whole edifice of the sanctions, by removing two oligarchs close to Nosferatu from their list of sanctionees. The EU capitulated under pressure from France, who was blackmailed by Russia over the fate of two French nationals held on Nosferatu's orders in Azerbaijan under fabricated charges. This is the same kind of "hostage diplomacy" the Islamo-Nazi regime of Iran uses routinely, and the EU did not have the baws to call Nosferatu's bluff by proxy. Fucking spineless eejits.

The only way Russian aggression doesn't happen again is if it's defeated in Ukraine. Putin has turned Russia into a war economy and cannot and will not reverse it. The only cure is losing militarily in Ukraine and overwhelming sanctions. Anything less is a short pause at best.

(Garry Kasparov, 2026)

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.

(George Orwell, Pacifism And The War, 1942)

After the conclusion of their world tour, which went better than Ed Sheeran's, YouGov headed back home and surveyed the Great British Public again about our feelings towards the Russian Reich's aggressive posturing, which is becoming more openly threatening day after day. I think we must first dissipate the delusion we entertain by calling Russia's acts of aggression and terrorism a "hybrid war". This is the vocabulary of appeasement and denial. Putin is not waging a hybrid war, because he doesn't do semantics like us. Putin is waging a very reals war because he is interested only in domination at all costs. Calling this a hybrid war, because the weapons are different from what we used even just ten years ago, only shows a complete misunderstanding of Russia's goals and what they are willing to do to meet them. A subservient Europe of three dozen Belarus, subjugated by intimidation and ruled by the FSB's Fifth Columns. Unfortunately, YouGov's findings show that we are not yet aware enough of the seriousness of the threat.

Of course, acknowledging a threat remains abstract if you don't factor in the precise nature of the threat. You don't have to fantasise about what it could be, as Putin's vodka-soaked sock muppet Dmitri Medvedev has spelled it out for us, and there is nothing moderate in his ramblings. If singling out Finland as a target for nuclear attack, or threatening to sink merchant ships in the Pacific, are not serious threats, then what the fuck is? Do we need Andy Burnham to speak as bluntly as Emmanuel Macron to take the full measure of Russia's existential threat to the whole of Europe? YouGov has surveyed us about the likelihood of what they called covert “semi‑military” attacks on facilities in the UK that are connected to the Ukraine war, which sounds like a convoluted euphemism for terrorist attacks on British armament factories or intelligence facilities, and a strong plurality consider it likely. We can just hope that the rest won't have a rude awakening in the coming months.

Of course the loopy woke far-left, who love nothing more than fabricating imaginary "phobias" to discredit and demonise any legitimate opinion they don't like, relish in accusing the supporters of Ukraine of Russophobia. Which is another shared trait with the Fash, as both lift their talking points verbatim from the FSB's propaganda, initially spread by bots on Twitter but now infecting the Woke's beloved Bluesky too. Against all factual evidence, these wankers keep braying that Russia is not our enemy, the same way Derek Savage and William Joyce were jointly squealing that Germany was not our enemy in the spring of 1939. Nothing can make them change their tune, not even the highest authorities of the Russian Reich openly threatening on state media to strike the UK because we are sharing cruise missile technology with Ukraine. Just as important is what we will get in return: the full collection of intelligence Ukraine has gathered about Russian battlefield tactics over the last four-and-a-half years. You can easily see why this infuriates Nosferatu, and why his tankies are relaying his threats of retaliation. Of course it won't be Spooks: Code 9 coming alive, but the predictable modus operandi has been revealed by multiple Russian acts of sabotage and terrorism in Germany, Estonia, Germany again, Italy and Slovakia. Can't say we haven't been warned.

The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.

(George Orwell, Pacifism And The War, 1942)

You could take the corruption of any corrupt Presidents in our country’s history, add it all up, multiply it by a thousand, and you would not even get close to what we’re seeing with this administration.

(Senator Mark Kelly)

Of course, our safest bet is to always expect the worst from Trump and he has proved us right again. He first hijacked Dolly Parton's death with an AI-generated deepfake, then ordered flags lowered at half-mast for a whole week, something that is subjected to very strict rules in the USA, only because not doing it would have cost Republicans votes in Tennessee. Then he made her death all about himself, because that's what narcissistic psychopaths do, in the middle of a totally incoherent rant. I guess some spad told him he had to capitalise on the public's emotion to help his failing popularity, and he totally botched it, as he usually does with everything he touches. Thank Dog for Instant Karma, as the Orange Baboon's crude attempts at appropriating Parton's legacy quickly backfired, and his popularity again sank to an all-time low. Concomitantly, his job approval remains abysmally atrocious, worse than it ever was during his first term, and not improving.

It is safe to bet that the Orange Baboon repeatedly and knowingly lying about 9/11, just days before the 25th anniversary of the attacks, will do nothing to enhance his popularity. Instead, what most Americans will remember is that he withdrew form the commemoration in New York City, because the organisers vetoed his openly partisan speech, filled with crass propaganda and self-promotion. YouGov also regularly surveys Trump's job approval issue by issue, with a list that now includes 22 items. Discontent is obvious as Trump does not have a net positive on any item, and an outright majority of disapproval on 19 out of 22. His worst ratings are on the economy, government spending and inflation, which are obviously the issues that will shape the vote at the midterms, not foreign policy. Trump may gesticulate and howl at the press all he wants, voters are aware that inflation is now higher than it was at the end of Biden's term, and that the price of gas, which is American for petrol, has increased by half in the same period. Under his watch and fully his responsibility.

What is most striking in recent events is that Trump has done jack shit to make himself more popular. Stuff like "If the Kennedy Center board does not put my name on it, I will have it demolished", or "I am kicking CNN out of the White House because they won't suck my dick" is definitely not what dreams are made on, let alone electoral victories. The story of Baboon Junior having his wedding subsidised by a Russian oligarch, and then pretending it does not matter because he paid the money back, il also just what alienates swing voters struggling with a cost of living crisis. Blaming Biden and Ukraine for it just does not cut it anymore, polls say. Even the deal with Denmark and Greenland, which the Orange Baboon will gloat about for months, is just smoke and mirrors, the illusion of a win. Trump has actually backed down on all his previous claims, and it is easy to see that the deal was made acceptable for Denmark and Greenland only because it changes nothing to the Greenland Defence Agreement of 1951. Even the American veto on Chinese investments is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential, as the Danish government would have blocked them anyway. This will not enhance Trump's already badly damaged credibility on foreign affairs. His war on Iran is widely rejected by the American people, as is his unrelenting support for Israel. It is quite ironic that the Orange Baboon's most significant achievement is that more Americans now support Palestine than Israel, something that had never happened in the past fifty years.

There is definitely a lot of poetic justice in YouGov's findings, that the Orange Baboon is several orders of magnitude less popular than Dolly Parton, but also far less than Barack Obama and even Joe Biden, his two predecessors he has an obsessive fixation on. Remember this is the bloke who ranked himself "the greatest President ever" on a totally phony scale of his own fabrication, that omitted a quarter of the past presidents, while independent experts rated him the worst ever on the basis of his first term only, and we already know the second one is far worse. His current approval ratings mercilessly show that he can't even rally Republican voters behind his policies, and this is the reason why he is terrified of the midterms. He and his courtiers are doing all they can to rig the elections, and mostly failing, and he is even already mobilising his whole legal staff to challenge in court any result that he will not like. This is a first for a US President. Ronald Reagan never had a majority in the House of Representatives and lived with it. Bill Clinton lost both Houses of Congress at his first midterms and never took anyone to court. But the Orange Baboon is already spreading conspiracy theories about all sorts of fraud that exist only in his demented imagination, deliberately paving the way for chaos after Election Day.

When corruption is the very foundation of a regime, those who battle it are extremists.

(Alexei Navalny)

If we lose the midterms, Heaven forbid, these Democrats, y'all impeachment's not even the big concern. They will turn every committee of Congress into an investigative body.

(Speaker Mike Johnson, 27 June 2026)

All 435 seats of the United States House of Representatives are up on the 3rd of November, as is mandated by the Constitution on every even year, and you can clearly see the wind of panic blowing through the ranks of the Republican Party. Speaker Mike Johnson has sent the House on recess early, so that no vote can be held before Election Day. Odds are he acted on direct orders from the White House, as it is widely known inside the Beltway that enough Republicans would have voted with the Democrats to defeat Trump on several key votes, most significantly on Articles of Impeachment against Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Polls are increasingly bad for the Republicans, which is why Trump is desperately trying to hijack the electoral process, which is constitutionally within the remit of the states. But the Supreme Court has quashed his attempt to suppress postal votes, and Circuit Courts are quashing his attempts to mess with the states' electoral registers one by one. Trump really seems out of road now, in his desperate moves to rig the elections, and totally out of stunts to disenfranchise parts of the electorate. The only thing we can safely assume is that the Orange Baboon will never bring back literacy tests, because he knows that his hordes of MAGA rednecks would be the ones failing them.

With the Democrats leading by double digits in some polls, all Trump has left is gerrymandering outwith the proper post-census redistricting cycle. New partisan boundaries have been proposed in eighteen states, four in Democratic states and fourteen in Republican states. At the end of the day, after many court challenges, gerrymandering will be enforced in only nine States, eight of them Republican. The only Democratic state involved is California, where the new boundaries were never taken to court because Governor Gavin Newsom was smart enough to have them ratified by popular vote at a referendum where 64% of voters approved them. Republicans will therefore benefit far less from the gerrymandering than they expected, with only eight seats now predicted to be artificially flipped. But this is far from enough to toggle the results and avoid Democrats taking back control of the House. Thirty seats are now predicted to switch to the Democrats, which is Trump's worst nightmare, and his courtiers' too. Expect Trump's lame duck years to look more like lane headless chicken years, as he is impeached and the Republican Party descends into blame game and civil war.

This very favourable context has also resulted in some unexpected changes within the Democratic Party. There is a new generation emerging from the ranks of the Democratic Socialists of America, the youngsters who have already dinosaured Bernie Sanders while performing very classic entryism into the Democratic Party. They are the force behind Zohran Kwame Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, those who would be members of the Green Party of England and Wales if they had been born on the right side of the Britannic Ocean. They have actually gone down the same road as Zack Polanski, toning down on the fundamentalist woke rhetoric, thusly nullifying the line of attack that cost them the 2024 elections, while rebranding themselves as the champions of the common people and the working class. The Republicans are trying to paint them as Communists, and it does not work. Mamdani is relentlessly bragging on social media about his successes as Mayor of New York, so more and more of the electorate are ready to accept that policies that work in the nation's largest city would also work nationally, and give them a chance to prove it. This is just what the left wing of the Democratic Party are gambling on, that the electorate will validate their brand of socialist populism and repudiate the MAGA brand of Christo-fascist populism.

They'll go after the President's family, the cabinet, his donors, friends, half of you in this room will be targeted. I run the protection program. We’ll take care of you.

(Speaker Mike Johnson, 27 June 2026)

You know, back in Cabot Cove, the only thing we have with claws are lobsters. And we eat them.

(Jessica Fletcher, Murder, She Wrote, 1984)

A third of the seats of the United States Senate are up six weeks from now, as routinely happens every even year. With by-elections thrown in, the ones they call special elections over there, that's 35 seats up for grabs. A third of this third are already hot spots, destined to become savagely fought battlegrounds in the last stages of the campaign. Including the seat for the Lobster State, Maine, which has already made all sorts of headlines for all the wrong reasons. What happens in this dozen seats will set the tone for the Orange Baboon's lame-duck years, and all evidence points to them making his life fucking Hell, which he fully deserves. Ten of these key seats are held by Republicans and only two by Democrats, and that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the battleground is hugely unfavourable for the Republicans. In the first six key states, Democrats are progressing everywhere, according to the last batch of polls. Democrats have everything to gain from this situation, as Republicans find themselves on the defensive when their early strategy was an all-out offensive on the weaker Democratic seats.

Clearly, we should not underestimate the importance of Nebraska, the state we are least likely to hear about in normal times. But these are not normal times. Democrats have dropped out of that race and are supporting Independent Daniel Osborn, who already gave Republicans a run for their money two years ago. This is exactly the kind of situation Republicans hate, as uncertain polling forces them to reroute resources to a seat they won by 32% in 2020, and are now predicted to lose by 1%. South Carolina too is in the Democrats' crosshairs since Lindsey Graham died and was succeeded by his far less charismatic sister. It is highly unlikely that the seat will flip, but it is a win-win situation for the Democrats anyway, as the Republican will again be forced to spend millions defending a seat that was very low down their priority list. But the worst will come from Ohio and Texas. The Ohio seat is J.D. Vance's old seat, so losing it will be more than a defeat, it will be a personal blow and a humiliation for the very ambitious Christo-fascist ideologue. Enough to deny him the Presidential nomination in 2028? Probably not, but it will make his task harder. Texas is also on course to become an embarrassingly humiliating loss. Texas has not had a Democratic Senator since 1993 and this specific seat, the Class II seat, has been in Republican hands since 1961. If Democrat James Talarico wins, he will, quite symbolically, become the distant successor of Lyndon Johnson, who held this very seat for 12 years before becoming JFK's Vice-President.

The overall picture that current polls paint is the worst case scenario for the Republicans, worse than anything they have ever readied themselves for. A year ago, it was safe to expect that two of their seats at most would be in play, Maine and North Carolina, and that they had a clean shot at gaining Michigan and thusly keeping control of the Senate. Now things have been turned upside down and back to front. Seats that were never even remotely expected to be threatened, like Ohio or Texas, are now predicted to flip. Republican heartlands like Kansas and Nebraska have become battlegrounds, and the Republicans are just unable to cope. They are learning the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat when a whole barrel of shit hits the fan, and that no amount of dosh Putin and their homegrown donors can pour into the campaign will make a fucking difference. The exaggeratingly triumphant party of 2024 is now besieged, civil war is looming, and they don't even know where to reroute their resources as Democrats have managed to make the whole map look like a fucking battleground. Plus dure sera la chute...

A lot of these guys, they think a seat in Congress is like a free ride, a great big cookie jar they can just dip their mitts into.

(Harry Parmel, Murder, She Wrote, 1985)

Back home we have a saying. Flowers that bloom too quickly are fair game for a late frost.

(Jessica Fletcher, Murder, She Wrote, 1984)

Overall, Republicans are now predicted to lose seven Senate seats, six to the Democrats and one to a rogue Independent. This is an even more massive blow than losing control of the House, as United States Senators are the closest the USA have to nobility. They are usually seasoned veterans of the Beltway who fully expect to hold their seats for as long as Dog grants them life, as some sort of Lifetime Achievement Award. 28 Senators have died in office aged 70 or older in this millennium alone, two of them over 90, which definitely makes the case for an age limit for elected officials. But age does not matter this year, as defeat is an equal opportunity business for Republicans, and lightning will strike even open seats. That's seven seats gone with the wind on current polls, most of which were thought totally impregnable until Trump decided to wage an illegal and useless war on Iran just out of spite, lost it for all intents and porpoises, and sent millions of voters straight into the Democrats' open arms thanks to skyrocketing fuel prices. Events. dear boy, events, as Harold Macmillan once muttered. Or, rather, karma, dear boy, karma.

Now you definitely need to click on this one to get a readable version in a pop-up

State names in bold red indicate Democratic gains. Bold blue would have indicated Republican gins, but there are none to show now. Their only once plausible gain, Michigan, has totally evaporated in the fallout of the Iran War. Even the too familiar racist innuendo against Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed does not work any more, and he is predicted to hold the seat with a bigger margin than former Senator Gary Peters in 2020. So this year's Senate elections are predicted to deliver the Democrats' best result since 2012, the year Barack Obama won his second term. This would also be the first time in the same timeframe that Democrats would bag a majority without the help of Independents caucusing with them, which they needed after both elections of the Biden Era. They even needed Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote on top after the 2020 elections. Now they are heading towards a clean and clear majority, with all the ingredients to make the West Wing a very uncomfortable place for the Orange Baboon's last two years.

What will actually happen after the new Congress convenes on 4 January 2027 is obviously a matter of conjecture. One thing we can rule out is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania defecting from the Democrats to the Republicans. His defection would be worth a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if the Republicans were just one seat short of a majority. But the magnitude of the predicted defeat would make it worthless, and Fetterman knows that his best chance to land on the buttered side of the toast is to stay with the Democrats and keep quiet in the furthest corner of the chamber until he is deselected ahead of the next election. I also anticipate some Democratic infighting for the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Democratic Socialists do not want the current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to get it, and will certainly challenge him quite strongly. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Democratic primary for the position, with Ocasio-Cortez running, which you know is American for standing, against Jeffries. Then Trump will definitely be impeached, as this requires only a simple majority in the House of Representatives. But he will not be convicted and removed from office, as this would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. And it will end up in two years of trench war between the White House and Congress, multiple Trump-instigated government shutdowns and all sorts of skirmishes that will benefit no one, and especially not the American people.

In Washington, “honest” is a word for which there is no clear definition.

(Joe Blinn, Murder, She Wrote, 1985)

Farage's latest fantasy is that immigrants are on the verge of forming their own standing army and going to war with the UK. Fever dreams all round.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 26 August 2026)

Immigration will obviously be one of the core issues of the next general election campaign, unless Andy Burnham finds a way to redirect the public's focus towards topics that are closer to their real concerns, like the cost of living, jobs and national security. It has already been demonstrated unequivocally that our "legitimate concerns" about immigration have been massively bloated by far-right propaganda and hostile foreign interventions, like when USA-based bots baited thousands of young Moroccans into Ceuta, or when Russian authorities sent thousands of Syrian refugees across the Polish and Lithuanian borders. This was done deliberately to boost the Fash-based narratives of "invasion" and "the Great Replacement", in the transparent hope of influencing European public opinions and elections. Now we have a new YouGov poll exploring all sides of the debate about immigration, and mostly debunking widespread myths about our attitudes to migrants.

The chart gives you a hint, doesn't it? YouGov fielded an omnibus poll about immigration in 2016, and then came back to us ten years on with the same questions, So it is not just a snapshot, it also shows the evolution of our attitudes after ten years. First about how many people from other countries we think should be allowed into the UK. The poll tested 23 different countries and, on average, we are more welcoming than we were ten years ago. It totally works for the first batch, all European countries, with just one exception. Russia. And this has nothing to do with imaginary "Russophobia", it's self protection. Why would we allow more nationals of a hostile genocidal dictatorship on our soil, when we already have more than enough of a Fifth Column of devout tankies? There is a quite similar pattern in the second batch of countries, covering the Americas and the Near East. Just a wee smitch less welcoming of Americans, and definitely less of Israelis. I guess recent events provide the appropriate explanation here too.

There is also no hint of racial prejudice at work here, as we are more welcoming of Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans and Turks than we were ten years ago. The final batch, covering Africa and Asia, is slightly, though not massively, different. We have roughly the same attitudes towards newcomers from African countries, and are still split about immigration from China. Which does not show some sort of racist bias, as we are also more welcoming of Japanese people. I venture our different attitudes are not linked to some fantasies about Yellow Peril, but to the broader context of the UK's relationships with these two countries, and the changes in their foreign policies. Last but not least, we have two countries that are founding members and at the heart of the Commonwealth of Nations, India and Pakistan. We have become less welcoming of both, despite their historic ties with Britannia, but not in the massive way that would justify suspicions of selective racism. Overall, YouGov's findings do not support the narrative that we have become hugely anti-immigration over the last ten years. If I had to draw a general conclusion, it would be that people who were already xenophobic have become increasingly so, and more ready to affirm it with violent demonstrations and actions. But the bulk of the Great British Public are not jumping on that bandwagon, even when the media promote it as clickbait to ad-filled sensationalist headlines.

This may also explain why Reform UK are resorting to stupider and stupider stunts as time goes by. Now, Vigilante Bob Jenrick, one of the prominent Tory migrants to Reform UK, has found another bone to gnaw on. Removing the right to vote at British elections for citizens of the Commonwealth, but with a twist. A couple of twists, actually. First, Vigilante Bob is knowingly lying about what the law says. Nobody can just get off the plane from wherever, vote and fly back home, you have to be a resident and a "qualifying Commonwealth citizen", which is defined by law to avoid exactly the kind of imaginary situation Vigilante Bob is dogwhistling about. Then he mentions only India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, while citizens of Canada, Australia and New Zealand also have the right to vote at our elections under the exact same legislation. You have to wonder why Bob is selectively outraged, or maybe you don't because you already know, don't you? Bob has also selectively overlooked that citizens of the Republic of Ireland have voting rights in the UK too, but that doesn't seem to bother him. Sadly, the Rump Tories too have no problem using mendacious xenophobic rhetoric as a vote-grabber, but at least Kemi Badenough is smart enough to not directly target Commonwealth citizens, many of whom have settled here and vote Conservative. Two of them were even the parents of the last Conservative Prime Minister.

Tory voters still prioritise immigration control, floating voters don’t.

(Frank Luntz, Conservative Party Conference, 2022)

Fusion, it's like a blend of different cooking styles, You know, Pacific Rim meets Nouvelle Cuisine.

(Ed Green, Law & Order, 2002)

YouGov has also surveyed, ten years ago and again this summer, which traits we find important in people who are willing to move in with us. It is a separate line of inquiry, totally disconnected from their country of origin, and globally more focused on their skills, which kind of talents they could bring to the UK. This is a switch towards a quite utilitarian approach of immigration, which makes sense if your policy is to rely on some sort of skills-based quotas, rather than on nationality-based quotas. YouGov's findings about what is important to us are also quite revealing. Education and skills are important, even in areas where we do not have a skills shortage. Which is at odds with the usual logic of skills-based quotas, as implemented in several countries in continental Europe, which are not fascist bigots, but prioritise skills that are lacking among their own nationals. Likewise, I totally agree that English proficiency is important and considering it so is not rooted in exclusionary bigotry, as it certainly makes the newcomers' life easier if they speak the lingo. Finally, a majority of us do not consider religion important, and the replies are very similar to what they were ten years ago. To put it bluntly, and in terms the woke can understand, Islamophobia has not risen in the UK. But, sadly, the Fash feel freer to express it openly in public spaces.

The Fash want us to see immigration as worse than, like, a Sharknadocalypse or summat, but polls show that We The People collectively have a more reasoned and pragmatic approach. To assess it, YouGov have added an extra question to their 2026 poll, that wasn't there in 2016. It confirms trends we have already seen, that our current approach to immigration is utilitarian and not ideological. To sum it up bluntly, we are willing to open the doors wide for people whose presence among us would be beneficial to us. Let's forget tuition-paying students and wealthy investors for now, even if we are extremely welcoming of both. The ideal profile is somebody with a high level of skills, even better if they are ready to work for the NHS. Nothing against Asian and African doctors, then, whatever Rupert Lowe says, and I guess they would be totally perfect if they had studied medicine in the UK too. There is just one flaw here, which is that we also need low-skilled workers ready to take low-paid jobs in the NHS. The jobs white homegrown Brits won't take because they are not good enough for them. Now that's something Reform conveniently fail to mention, probably because it would contradict whole building blocks of the policies. Just saying.

To make the situation even worse for the government, we now have two high-profile celebrity migrants begging to be readmitted into the Realm, Henry C. Mountbatten-Windsor and his wife R. Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, née Markle. He appears to have kept his British citizenship, despite having spent less time within our borders than Nigel Farage at the House of Commons over the last two years. She is still legally a United States citizen, as automatic British citizenship by marriage was abolished before either of them was born, and she never applied for either Leave To Remain or settled status, which would have opened the way for a later naturalisation. Their son is a British citizen by birth and descent, but their daughter is entitled to dual UK and US citizenship due to having been born at Oprah Winfrey's studio, or summat. YouGov and More In Common polled this from two different angles. First, do we collectively think they have earned their Right To Return, which is not an unalienable human right under English Common Law? Second, are we happy to get them back? And the two dissimilar wordings spawned remarkably similar results.

Of course, neither poll used a "don't give a shit" option. YouGov went for the perennial "don't know" the usual refuge of those who want to hide their secret thoughts from public scrutiny. But I do think it is fair to reframe it as I did this time, because I feel it was actually used by a large number of respondents as an affirmation of how they really feel, for lack of the appropriate option. More In Common went for a more appropriate "don't care either way", which definitely means the same as my wording. I must say that, for once, I feel a total kinship with the Green voters, the least bovvered by Harryghan's Return. But I also feel alarmed by the reply of the Reform voters. If The British Trumpists do not want Harryghan to return, doesn't it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are entitled to seek asylum from systemic harassment in Trumpistan?

My idea of fusion is hamburger meets French fries.

(Lenny Briscoe, Law & Order, 2002)

Law is politics. People must behave according to the rules made by legislators.

(Marie Madsen, Judge John Deed, 2007)

You may remember that Andy Burnham's first major controversy emerged from Keir Starmer's controversial and ill-advised Early Release Scheme, which has fortunately be partly repealed since. This incited YouGov to probe our attitudes on crime, and the solutions we would support to tackle the widely publicised and wildly exaggerated issue of prison overcrowding. And what we have in mind often doesn't make sense. Increasing the length of suspended sentences just kicks the barrel of shit two years further down the road. Politicians may be tempted to do it, so the next guy has to deal with it, but it solves jack shit. Likewise, deporting foreign inmates, an all-time favourite of the Fash, is just an illusion. Half of these foreign criminals come from the European Union, who have every reason to tell us to fuck off and keep them, since Brexit took down all alleys of cooperation. Being willing to listen to vox populi does not mean you have to endorse all the loopy proposals, that's what governing is about.

The second batch of items surveyed by the poll is hardly more encouraging. Of course, we massively support building more prisons because this is the obvious solution. No shit, Sherlock. It is so obvious that even the Conservatives are all for it. Too bad they only thought of it when it became an issue for the Labour Government, when they did fuck all to increase prison capacity during their 14 years in power. But hypocrisy has always been their forte, hasn't it? Fortunately, we don't want to shorten sentences even more after a guilty plea. or send male criminals to women's prisons. There are surely enough of these already. But we are also not rejecting the idea of renting cells abroad, which has actually already been done by France, who sent some of their lot to the Netherlands. Again, the main obstacle is the abysmal loss of goodwill we have suffered since Brexit. Which European country would help us solve an electorally explosive issue, when all they have to do is to sit back, watch and thoroughly enjoy unlimited Schadenfreude? Thank Dog we can still call Rwanda or El Salvador. Or maybe use derelict Royal Navy warships as floating prisons. After all, it was all the rage during the Napoleonic Wars.

The final items in YouGov's list reflect the massive public outrage after all the gory details of Keir Starmer's Early Release Scheme were disclosed. There is very strong opposition to the early release of "less serious offenders", whatever this actually means, and overwhelming opposition to the early release of "more serious offenders". This is the direct consequence of the tsunami of outrage following the announcement that the Sentencing Act 2026 would let the murderers of PC Andrew Harper, who had been sentenced to 13 years under a lesser charge of manslaughter, go free after serving only half of their sentence, instead of the two-thirds mandated by earlier legislation. Opponents were quick to stress that the original sentences had already been considered too lenient after the trial in 2020, and Parliament agreed, as this is the very case that led to the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, instantly known as Harper's Law. This Act includes a mandatory sentence of 20 years for the manslaughter of emergency workers on duty, which would have applied to Harper's murderers. It was criticised for "taking away the discretion of judges", which was fairly ridiculous as it was judicial discretion that had led to a lenient sentence in the first place, and mandatory minimum sentencing already applied for murder and repeated offences of drug trafficking or possession of illegal firearms, without anyone objecting.

Andy Burnham inherited an impossible conundrum and, all things considered, has probably made the best of it, or the least bad. At first, it looked like a false start and procrastination, and he was criticised for not acting quickly and decisively. Suspending and reviewing the Early Release Scheme was clearly not enough, and a petition to keep Harper's murderers under lock and key gathered more than a million signatures in just ten days, clearly showing which way public opinion was leaning. But what most of us failed to notice was that Burnham's original political and moral conundrum had been compounded by a legal conundrum. Any new disposition to shrink the scope of the Early Release Scheme could not be seen as targeting Harper's murderers specifically, or else it would have been challenged and most likely struck down by the Supreme Court. Any exclusion had to be defined in broader terms, by umbrella categories of offences. That's how we ended up with the final version of the scheme, reached after six weeks and in two stages, which removes rape, child sex offences, dangerous driving and manslaughter from the list of eligibles. This was definitely the right thing to do, and a PR win for The King Of The Suburbs Of Winterfell, without creating any sort of precedent.

There is no slippery slope here. This is sui generis.

(Jack McCoy, Law & Order, 1997)

Morality is not now, and never has been, a significant part of the criminal justice system.

(Judge Albert Parsons, Law & Order, 1995)

As we all know, the crux of the biscuit, to quote Frank Zappa's immortal words, was not the apostrophe, but the very principle of early release, above and beyond the scope of Keir Starmer's scheme. So YouGov naturally polled us about which offences should make convicted criminals eligible for early release, or not. The replies were unavoidably influenced by the context, especially the very emotional exchanges about PC Andrew Harper, but I think we can assume they are an accurate representation of how British public opinion generally feels. Some numbers may have been inflated by the context, but the overall trends look genuine. We are definitely less inclined than our MPs to have mercy on the criminal in all cases of violent crime, whatever the length of the sentence. If We The People had decided, there would have been no Early Release Scheme and it would have saved Andy Burnham lots of time and energy dealing with the controversy.

When the focus shifts to lesser violent crimes and non-violent crimes, we tend to be more merciful, which could be very ill-advised in some cases. Anyone who has seen their life turned into Hell because of identity theft, with is cybercrime and fraud, would fight against early release of the criminal who put them in that situation. I also object to the possibility of early release for those found guilty of criminal damage. If the target was private property or belongings, it's highly traumatic for the victim, who should be the priority of justice policy, not the offender. If the target was public property, it hits us in the wallet through our taxes because the fines are far lower than the cost of repairs, so serving the full sentence is only fair in the name of protection of society. When election season comes, these issues should be raised at hustings, so we know with certainty where the candidates stand. And maybe they would think twice about supporting other Early Release Schemes in the future, or seeking an excuse in the proverbial overcrowding of HMPs. As of this week, official statistics show a headroom of 1,775 plus an Operating Margin of 1,640. Which means 3,415 vacant places, half of which are readily usable, and half could be used in an emergency. Tight, but not Victorian-like overcrowding.

YouGov also asked their panel to rank four missions of the criminal justice system in the order they should be prioritised. These results show that we are not pusillanimous pussyfooters, to quote Spiro Agnew's immortal words, but have very clear views of what the core purpose of the criminal justice system is. Punishment first, public safety second, rehabilitation last. No pollyfoxing here, which sounds like a very sane, sound and sensible approach. In fact, the very concept of rehabilitation, as embedded in our laws, is highly questionable as it has its roots in the religious concept of redemption, which is highly questionable too. And does not really work. The most recent official statistics say that the average reoffending rate is 30% on average within the year following release, but rises to a whopping 68% for adults sentenced to less than 12 months, and both have steadily increased over the last five years. Admittedly, shorter sentences may be the consequence of lesser offences as much as of a redemptionist approach, but I guess the huge gap speaks for itself. Petty offenders reoffend because they feel they got away with it and are not deterred, and more dangerous criminals handled by the courts as petty offenders do because the system sends a general message of leniency.

There is a lot to say about the evolution of our criminal justice system over the last thirty years, which has left the public with the very justifiable impression that it cares more about the feelings and rights of the criminals than about the rights of the victims and the protection of society. This is definitely not the result of far-right contagion, even if Reform love to push that button, but the consequence of political decisions impacting justice, made by both the Conservatives and Labour in London, and by the SNP in Edinburgh. For example, in Scotland, being under 25 is a valid excuse to avoid a prison sentence for rape, which is totally outrageous. And don't get me started on the insanity defences that have been made up by solicitors and paid psychiatrists over the last thirty years. This is another import from the USA, that is slowly infecting the UK's criminal justice system, while the only acceptable excuse should be that defined by David Hume in his Commentaries in 1797. To serve the purpose of a defense in law, the disorder must therefore amount to an absolute alienation of reason, ut continua mentis alienatione, omni intellectu careat, not some fabricated "momentary lapse" of whatever, or the "extreme emotional distress" that has become a classic of US courtrooms. Short of this absolute alienation, the full brute force of the law must be brought to bear.

By creating an excuse, we lose any chance to punish crime.

(Jack McCoy, Law & Order, 2001)

The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this and worse, members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians.

(Ed Miliband, House of Commons 8 September 2026)

One of the most unexpected decisions made by the Burnham government is obviously the sanctions against Israelis illegally settling on Palestinian territory in the West Bank, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband with unprecedented mercilessly scathing remarks aimed not just at the settlers, but at the Israeli government too. Andy Burnham then doubled down on it, specifically targeting the Israeli government, and Keir Starmer by ricochet, in a column in The Hipstershire Gazette. The perfect broadside to dissipate any doubt anyone could have had regarding the government's real intentions. This is a very welcome decision, showing that Burnham won't entertain the kind of abhorrent double standards that have become trademarks of both the Woke and the Fash. Opinium, YouGov and Deltapoll found that we do support it, even if many are still sitting on the fence, but now we need to go several steps beyond. Israel deserves boycott and divestment as much as South Africa during the apartheid years. Israel deserves strong sanctions as much as Russia. Burnham and Miliband must show their determination to fight genocidal imperialism to the end and go for it.

We have heard a zillion times that opposition to Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank is anti-Semitic, which makes as much sense as saying that supporting Ukraine is Russophobic, or that opposing Nazism in 1936 was Germanophobic. It actually started with the asinine narrative that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, which could trigger a whole philosophical debate we will set aside for a rainy day. The problem is that pro-Netanyahu influencers have made any reasoned debate about this more toxic than kicking fireworks into a barrel of sulphuric acid, and some genuine ideological anti-Semites within the loopy woke far-left have helped, sadly. Opinium polled us about it and found that only a small plurality agree that sanctioning the illegal settlements is not anti-Semitic, with the largest contingent being again fence-sitters, As if expressing your true beliefs, even in an anonymous poll, would single you out as a target for cretinous accusations of racism and bigotry. The loopy revisionist far-left can only blame themselves for this sad state of affairs, as Hamas-huggers in their ranks have totally perverted the true nature of anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinian people, and opened the door to abuse and unfounded accusations from the Israel-appeasing lobby.

But these sanctions absolutely do not guarantee that a brighter future will someday be in the making for Palestine. Both the Israeli government and the United States Ambassador to Israel have openly threatened us with retaliation, just like Putin does when we increase our help to Ukraine. The White House has not responded yet, but we all know that, at the end of the day, they will do nothing against Netanyahu's colonialist designs over Gaza and the West Bank. especially if oligarchs close to the Orange Baboon benefit from them financially. Opinium nevertheless asked us about three possible options for Palestine's future, all of which are probably already totally passé. Even Andy Burnham still entertains the delusion that the two-state solution is still alive and kicking. It isn't, as all Israeli governments have undermined it for the last thirty years. The destruction of Gaza and the planned annexation of the West Bank are just the final nails in the coffin. Don't expect it will come back to life after the incoming Israeli election, even if Netanyahu loses in a landslide. All Israeli politicians know it would be political suicide to even mention it, especially during an election campaign, after thirty years spent fuelling hate and dehumanisation of Palestinians, and British support for it won't make a fucking difference.

In fact, even the poll's "current status quo" is a thing of the past now, as it is not what Netanyahu and his Judeo-fascist allies are planning. Of course, they want one state, but one where Palestinians no longer have a place. Judeo-fascists too want one nation from the river to the sea, but one that is exclusively theirs. What Israel is doing on the West Bank is not "settlements", it's genocidal colonisation. It's of the same nature as what the Europeans did all across the Americas five centuries ago, and up and down Africa two centuries ago. It's what Hitler planned for Großdeutschland, exterminating the native Untermenschen to make room for ethnically pure German Aryans. It's what Stalin did in Crimea, deporting the Tatars to faraway marches of the Soviet Empire and replacing them with ethnic Russians. It's what Putin is doing in the illegally occupied territories of Ukraine, replacing the exiled Ukrainian population who fled the war zones with ethnic Russians. It's totally the fascist myth of the Great Replacement, only for once it's happening for real. It's the fascists doing it themselves, based on their own genocidal ethno-nationalist agendas, dipped in an intoxicating dose of religious zealotry that makes Trumpistan their natural ally.

For too long, we have been hesitant to act, fearful of being accused of being anti-Israel. Today we are announcing carefully judged, targeted steps that are not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the unacceptable policies of the current Israeli government.

(Andy Burnham, The Guardian, 8 September 2026)

My immediate priority is to build on the good work that Keir did in rebuilding bridges. Because those bridges were broken in the early part of this decade. And Keir did a good job in re-establishing that relationship.

(Andy Burnham, 21 September 2026)

The right-wing fish-wrappers are all PTSDed and crouched in a foetal semi-prone since Andy Burnham announced that he does not rule out making a Brexit reversal part of the Labour Party's manifesto for the next general. Or, in plain Common English, rejoining the European Union. Which only proves that being a foaming-at-the-mouth Brexiteer, or pretending to be to attract readership, makes you fucking stupid and unable to read the room. For years, poll after poll has found that British public opinion opine that Brexit was the wrong choice and is a fucking failure. When offered a binary choice between rejoining and staying out, we would vote to rejoin the EU by a far bigger margin than we chose to leave ten years ago. Now we have a new poll, fielded by YouGov on behalf of Best For Britain, that offered us a non-binary choice between seven options. And the verdict is clear. Even when mixed with lesser options, rejoining the EU is our preferred choice by an overwhelming margin.

If you add the straightforward rejoin option and the two partial-rejoin options for either the Single Market or the Customs Union, you reach a majority. This is a confirmation of the binary polls showing a strong desire to rejoin, as those favouring only partly rejoining would obviously go the Full Monty at a hypothetical referendum. The status quo is now almost as unpopular as further estrangement from the EU, probably because we are painfully aware that the fallback scenario would be some sort of rapprochement with either the USA or China, and we don't want either. Nevertheless, the usual political and generational divides are still clearly visible, as well as a social divide, for which YouGov used the new NS-SEC classes instead of the outdated ABCDE social grades. Interestingly, Scotland remains the most Europhile of the Three Nations, and Wales have swung away from their earlier pro-Brexit stance, despite Reform UK still doing well there. The regional divide within England is also less visible than it was ten years ago, which is good news as it proves that Europhilia has become more consensual even in Reform-heavy regions.

Right now Andy Burnham is still splitting hairs and tiptoeing around the elephant in the room like in, "we're building bridges with the EU, and we'll burn that fucking bridge when we come to it". This is daft, as the YouGov poll for Best For Britain found that rejoining the EU is the people's favourite option in 628 of the 632 constituencies of Great Britain, and even in all 632 if you discard undecideds. Closer ties with the EU without rejoining any of its institutions, Andy's current chosen strategy, is the people's second choice in 267 constituencies, and again in all 632 if you weed out undecideds, Finally, the aggregate of the plain simple rejoin option and the two partly-rejoin options is supported by an outright majority in 527 constituencies if you exclude undecideds. Res ipsa loquitur, as the saying goes. So Andy definitely has to go one step beyond his current cautious attitude, that makes him look like Keir Starmer's Doppelgänger, and boldly go where no Prime Minister has gone before, channelling his Inner Andy Murray and plainly saying. "Fuck Brexit and let's do this". Short of that, he risks being outflanked by the LibDems, which would be fucking hilarious.

Let’s work towards a trusted partner approach that doesn’t cause a problem where there wasn’t a problem and where we have common cause.

(Andy Burnham, 21 September 2026)

Andy’s stock in trade is an easy-going self-confidence. He’s comfortable in his skin in a way that Keir never was. Or maybe the artifice is just better concealed.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 22 September 2026)

Our beloved pollsters are really fond of probing us on how much we love our politicos and approve of their work, but sometimes they have to find some more imaginative approach. Find Out Now has just done that, surveying our views of the Dynamic Trio of Burnham, Badenoch and Farage on a list of thirteen traits we may find desirable, or undesirable, in a political heavyweight. Ed Davey, Zack Polanski and Count Binface were not tested, which is a shame as they are all as likely to be the next Prime Minister as Kemi and Nigel. Rupert Lowe was also left out, but for a reason, as he is not much of a thing outwith Great Yarmouth. Andy Burnham is not doing as well overall as you would expect from his high favourability ratings, and there are many areas in which he is still a mystery to us. This is a bit surprising, as The King Of A Quarter Of Wigan has been sitting in Number Ten's Ejector Seat for two months already, but we probably need a longer accommodation period, just as when we emerge from a long dark tunnel into the bright lights of the sunlit uplands.

But Andy's spads should not worry too much about this lone poll, as what matters most is not his raw numbers, but how they compare with the other contenders'. And he is doing quite well anyway on the most significant positive traits. A natural leader looking Prime Ministerial and standing up for Britain while representing a fresh start rooted in real life experience. The worried spads will also find some solace in Kemi's and Nigel's assessments, which are both worse than Andy's. Kemi looks less Prime Ministerial, which is already bad enough, but is also seen as divisive and out of touch, which seems to be a fair judgment when you consider the pittbullish quality of her interventions in Commons, especially at PMQs. Quand je me regarde je me désole, quand je me compare je me console, as they say in Québec. ChatGPT will translate that for you. That could be Andy's soundbite now.

The fun part is that Kemi is an unknown quantity for more of us than Andy, despite having been around in SW1 longer, and still manages to get worse ratings than him. She actually scores net positives on only the three most negative traits, which makes them net negatives. Kemi has some tough choices to make now, and none of her options look very promising. She could keep things going as they are, and probably face a leadership challenge soon. She could swing more to the right, losing more votes to the LibDems, and probably face a leadership challenge soon. She could steer back towards the centre, losing more votes to Reform, and probably face a leadership challenge soon. Either way, she is toast and very unlikely to lead the Conservatives straight into another defeat at the next general. The worst part is obviously that all the leadership hopefuls look just as incompetent, but also unwilling to become the next sacrificial lamb. At least until the party's ratings become worse enough than bad enough, and definitely call for extreme measures. Which would not include rallying Benito Fromage, as he seems to have very effectively scuttled his hopes of ever moving to Number Ten, and gets even worse ratings than Kemi.

It looks like Nigel is losing on all counts here. His carefully crafted image as "the man of the people", always with a pint in his hand even when he is not at the pub, has been shattered like the Buddhas of Bamiyan at the hands of the Taliban. Not because he was never ever seen to drink the pint, but because people now define him as much by what he is not as by what he is. He is divisive, out of touch and on the side of rich. Which is a fair and balanced picture of the bloke who has no problem taking illegal bribes from undercover journalists, convicted criminals, crypto-crooks and Russia. He is not Prime Ministerial, trustworthy, competent or fun to be around. Nobody wants to be his friend, a fate worse than Winnie The Pooh's, and his £80-apiece Cameo videos sending wishes to Hugh Janus and the IRA are coming back to haunt him in the arse. Even the mandatory Trumpian tantrums and the self-victimisation don't work anymore, when we all can plainly see he is a fraud and a fucking moron. And all the gesticulation in the world won't make a fucking difference.

You can’t help wondering if Nige is beginning to lose the plot somewhat. How else do you explain his recent Substack post in which he claimed that “British politics is awash with dirty money”?

(John Crace, The Guardian, 21 September 2026)

Why are journalists failing to make the case to the public that right-wingers such as Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are dishonest, self serving and not terribly bright?

(Alexis from Kent, The Guardian, 5 September 2026)

The trends of voting intentions tell us that Labour has bounced and then debounced, which has allowed Reform to rebound. This is quite alarming as recent events prove that the Fash have lost their already tenuous grip om reality and morphed in some sort of real-life social engineering experiment, designed by a mad scientist to test the outer limits of the public's gullibility. How else do you explain proposals that make Trump's Project 2025 look benign and Dagny Taggart sound like a socialist? Is it just to find out how long it will take the Workington Man to realise that only fucking morons can propose such shite and only fucking morons can vote for it? That's one of the many reasons Andy Burnham must resist the renewed calls for proportional representation, that would only legitimise a massive vote for the Fash, while the real way to counter them is tactical voting of a Resistance Front in a majority system. It is just another sign of the in-built stupidity of the faux progressives that The Hipstershire Gazette thinks that calling opponents of PR "rearguard reactionaries" will help their cause.

I am not even advocating to keep first-past-the-post, though the Makerfield by-election has proved that a strong anti-Fash tactical vote can be mobilised when the British Union of Trumputinists show their true colours and field a crassly incompetent candidate. We should boldly go where no electoral law has gone before and try a two-round majority system. Which could be watered down to Instant Runoff if we are unwilling to open the polling places on two successive Thursdays. The Greater Manchester Mayoral by-election has proved this too can work quite well. But the optimal situation would be one where the left-wing candidates stop hitting at each other and concentrate their broadsides on the Fash, to expose them as the irresponsible crooks they are and boost anti-turquoise tactical voting from Conservative voters too. One can hope, can't he? With the system we have, the current snapshot of polls says that the Burnham Bounce is still alive and well for now, and Reform UK still going down slowly.

This is based on the four most recent polls, conducted by Opinium, More In Common, YouGov and Find Out Now between 16 and 23 September. That's a super-sample of 9,008, putting Labour 2.5% ahead of Reform and delivering a hung Parliament with Labour as the fist party with one hundred and one more dalmatians, oops... sorry, seats than Reform. This time, a Lab-Lib Pact would get 318 seats, just the amount you need to "have it" at a division, and probably would have to seek support or neutrality from the Greens, the SNP or Plaid Cymru to make those divisions safer. These numbers are definitely not an incentive to even think of calling a snap election. Legally, the current Parliament ceases to exist on the 15th of August 2029, five years after the current one first convened. Andy Burnham has every reason to wait, possibly until the fifth anniversary of the last election, and go for a July 2029 election. He is not threatened by a backbench rebellion and polls don't offer him an oven-ready opportunity for a fresh start, as they did for Gordon Brown in 2007. The safest route is thusly to do nothing and wait until the life of the current Parliament runs its natural course. He even has polls to comfort this course of action, as our appetite for a hurried snap election has vanished.

It is quite fun to see the Great British Public now turning against the idea of a snap election. You just have to wonder if the urge to get one ever really existed. Only Benito Fromage seriously demanded one, as the Tories quickly grasped it was a dead end and would not happen. Sadly the mediataro-pollstertarial complex jumped on this bandwagon, as they always do with the Fash's most pathetic squeals for attention, so it is reassuring to see it now dead. But the most damaging weakness of British political attitudes remains pretty much alive. We can't help importing extravagantly cretinous ideologies from the USA, which have nothing to do with real British values, and even less with the wider heritage of European Enlightenment. First we embraced wokeism, which has left nothing behind but a legacy of intolerance, exclusion and witch-hunting infecting erstwhile progressive circles. Then came ethnonationalist Christo-fascism, which is built on intolerance, exclusion and witch-hunting, and has become the natural refuges of the heirs of Mosley, Joyce and Powell. This one is still pretty much alive, so Labour's priority should be to relentlessly punch them in the baws, and destroy their fake persona as "men of the people", which they never were.

The whole point of Reform is that everyone at the top of the party is posh and has absolutely no idea of what it’s like to have no money.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 26 August 2026)

What former Prime Minister could resist upstaging the new one hours before his first appearance at the government dispatch box for sixteen years? Especially when the new one had been plotting his downfall for at least a year.

(John Crace, The Guardian, 1 September 2026)

Now a new live grenade has landed in Andy Burnham's lap, from where he least expected it. Custer had his Last Stand, and now Keir Starmer has had his last U-turn. His constituents in Holborn and St Pancras heard him promise he would continue faithfully representing them until the end of the current parliamentary term, but they certainly misheard, like all the rest of us. Now Sly Keir has heard The Call Of The Wild, like Tony Blair before him, and triggered a by-election in the constituency that first elected him in 2015, so he can spend more time away from his family. Of course, that gave the Woke Wing at The Hipstershire Gazette another opportunity to do what she does best, backstabbing a corpse. The constituency has existed since 1983 under its current name, and has always delivered good results for Labour, with just two different Labour MPs representing it over 43 years. Even in 2024, when Starmer faced a strong challenge from the Hamas-hugging far-left, he was never in real danger. Count Binface is rumoured to consider standing, to capitalise on his outstanding performance in Clacton-super-Mare. Zack Polanski has thrown his gauntlet into the arena too, hoping to at last get elected on his own name and merits, instead of as just one of several nondescript apparatchiks on a party list.

Luckily for the Houseboat Che, Andrew Feinstein, the Gaza candidate supported by Your Party from the shadows, will not stand at the by-election now that Starmer is gone. Which means that we must factor in that Polanski's starting base is not 10% but 29%, the combined Green and Feinstein vote in 2024. Polanski might also find a reason to believe in the results of the last Camden Borough Council election, that was held just four months ago, especially if he assumes that the Camden People's Alliance's voters would switch the the Greens at the by-election. The constituency is entirely within the Borough of Camden, spread over eleven wards in Paddington Bear, 101 Dalmatians and War Of The Worlds territory, and all saw a significant Green surge in May. Of course, local elections cannot and should not be considered reliable predictors of a parliamentary election, but Westminster polls also show a sharp decline of the Labour vote in the Imperial Capital, coupled with a significant Green surge. All of this just says that we should keep an open mind, though not up to the point where our brain falls out, and not consider this one a shoe-in for Labour, despite the Burnham Bounce. We all know that what is true in Winterfell may prove awfully wrong in King's Landing, so I won't rule out a close result, or even an upset similar to Gorton and Denton.

The Council election votes do not tell the whole story, as first-past-the-post saved the day for Labour. With all wards declared, Labour held 22 out of 30 seats, conceding only 8 to the Greens. It got worse quite quickly, with another select sample of the Greenies' incompetence. They fielded a candidate in the Regent's Park ward who worked as a teacher within the Borough, and was therefore legally banned from sitting as a Councillor for the same Borough. He was elected, instantly de-elected, and the ensuing by-election saw the seat switch back to Labour. So the final count was 23-7, clearly not a resounding success for the Greens, and Labour remained in control of the Borough Council, albeit with a much-reduced majority. Labour's strategy must certainly factor in that Camden is Green-friendly, which has already driven the local Labour Party to outwoke the woke Greens for virtue-signalling brownie points. How far they take that during the incoming campaign will be fun to watch, even if plausibly mildly depressing.

Why tell the world about it on a Bank Holiday weekend when nobody is paying attention to the news, when you can wait till the first day of the new parliamentary session and grab the headlines?

(John Crace, The Guardian, 1 September 2026)

Andy Burnham now needs to know what devolution means for Wales, and it’s very, very different. We’re a nation. We’re not a region of England.

(Rhun ap Iorwerth, The Guardian, 13 September 2026)

Nearly five months ago, Rhun ap Iorwerth became the first First Minister of Wales who did not come from the ranks of the Labour Party, when Plaid Cymru ended a century of Labour domination on Welsh politics. The Senedd election ended in total humiliation for Welsh Labour, finishing third behind Plaid Cymru and Reform UK. Welsh voters propelling the English Nationalist Party to second place said a lot about the massive discontent accrued by Labour, and probably contributed more to Keir Starmer's downfall than the disastrous results at the English locals on the same day. Losing Wales was losing a key part of Labour's heart and soul, and that was a more devastating blow than losing Council seats in Hackney, because it was symbolically far worse. Survation and YouGov have now conducted the first post-election Full Welsh, which are contradictory and complementary. Reform UK could be either slightly weaker or slightly stronger, while the Conservatives could be either slightly stronger or slightly weaker, so it's probably safe to conclude that the general mood is one of stability. Except for a swing from Plaid Cymru back to Labour, found in both polls. But the seat projections still have Rhun ap Iorwerth as First Minister and no major threat for his minority government, in the presence of a less-than-credible opposition.

Of course, the English Nationalist Party is weakened by a double whammy of turmoil right now. First, one of their rookie ASs crossed the floor directly to the Plaid Cymru benches, where she was welcomed with open arms by the First Minister. She accused the Farage clan of not giving a shit about Wales, which was fucking obvious to everybody else, but a belated epiphany is still better than no epiphany at all. Then, Benito's branch office manager in Cardiff was forced to resign after his arrest for assault. Which came as a surprise only to those who hadn't been paying attention to the perennial alpha-maleish culture within the New Model British Union Of Fascists. Survation and YouGov also polled Welsh voting intentions for the next general election, and it confirms what we already knew. There is definitely a Burnham Bounce in Wales, just as significant as in England, which would turn the next general into a three-way battleground. This is actually very favourable for Labour, as Reform came second in 13 of their current 27 seats, so the fall of the Reform vote would make those much easier to hold. It also makes things harder for Plaid Cymru as they came second in only 4 seats, all held by Labour. Big gains have thusly become far less likely than they were just a few months ago.

Now the Welsh Government are in talks with the UK Government about devolution, but are also questioning how serious Andy Burnham actually is about expanding the perimeter of devolution. Some powers that are devolved in Scotland, like policing and justice, are not in Wales, and Burnham has shown no inclination to transfer them. Despite all the nice talk, Burnham seems stuck in a very English centuries-old attitude, still treating Wales as a Principality of the Kingdom of England rather than as a real nation. This is not the best approach when the Celtic Nations are challenging the current constitutional order and reaffirming their unalienable right to self-determination. I certainly expect Donald Trump to rebound on that, now that he has taken everybody by surprise with his vociferous, and reiterated, support for Irish Reunification. It may have come from very crude electioneering, pandering to the Irish-American electorate ahead of the midterms. But it may just as plausibly have been another childish stunt, to prove he can be a thorn in our arse out of spite, just because he doesn't like Burnham being far less malleable than Starmer was. Like when he firmly stands with Canada in their multiple skirmishes with the Orange Baboon, or reaffirms our unshakeable support for Ukraine. So we may be closer than we think to Trump interfering in Welsh affairs, the same way he is meddling with Irish affairs. Of course, it could be worse. The Donald hasn't bought a golf course in Wales. Yet.

The immediate future of Wales is essentially in the hands of two very different visions of what it is to be Welsh, what Welsh identity is, what Welsh nationhood can be.

(Michael Sheen, The Guardian, 3 September 2026)

Conviction is a character flaw when it turns into self-congratulatory depression.

(Mac Geller, Law & Order, 1996)

Survation, on behalf of the Diffley Partnership, has gifted us the first Full Scottish of Holyrood's 2026-2031 term, including all the food for thought we are entitled to expect from a Full Scottish. The Scottish Pravda dutifully celebrated it, as its findings broadly fit with their own narrative. Most of them, actually, as the Holyrood part of the poll must have disappointed them. Four months on, and with no earthquake rocking Scottish soil, you'd thunk that the poll's results would pretty much match those of the election. But they fucking don't. It might, just might, be because the Scottish Government appear directionless and idealess, stuck in a Groundhog Day of useless votes about getting a mandate from the Scottish Parliament to hold a second Independence Referendum that will never happen. Whatever the reasons, the Scottish public's mood has changed quite a bit since the Seventh of the Fifth.

Thank Dog again for the magic tricks of first-past-the-post, that allow the SNP to hold the same number of constituencies, albeit after an interesting round of musical seats. The SNP are predicted to lose one more seat to the Greenies (Glasgow Kelvin and Maryhill), one back to the Conservatives (Eastwood) and three to Reform UK (Bathgate, Falkirk East and Linlithgow, Falkirk West). All three in the Central Scotland and Lothians West region, where the English Nationalist Party are predicted to significantly overperform. And, before you ask, it is credible because they already did at the election. The SNP are also predicted to gain two seats from the Conservatives (Dumfriesshire, Galloway and West Dumfries), two back from the LibDems (Edinburgh Northern, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) and one back from Labour (Na h-Eileanan an Iar). Generally, the most significant result, apart from the continuous rise of Reform, is the blunt fall of the Greens who would lose almost half there seats. Never fail to acknowledge good news. The fun part is that these voting intentions are definitely not correlated with our opinions of the various available political leaders.

Aye, mates, you're not dreaming. That's a fucking Scottish poll saying that we have a more favourable view of Andy Burnham than of John Swinney. Who'd have thunk that the King Of A Bit Of The North's magic would work North Of The North too? Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? No Scottish Labour leader has been tested as they don't have one right now but, apart from them, all main English party leaders have more favourables than their Scottish sidekicks, which says a lot about the perceived quality of the local products. Their only consolation, in a relative way, is that Donald Trump remains more massively unpopular with the Great Scottish Public than any of the locals. Now, you may not have noticed, but Scottish Labour are having a leadership contest to fill the immense void left by Anas Sarwar when he accepted an ermine as a way to secure a position in Andy Burnham's government. Survation polled our perception of the importance of this contest for the future of Scotland, and found we are not really convinced it has any.

So majorities of us simultaneously opine that the contest is of little interest to the general public and won't make any difference to the fate of the Nation, with a narrow plurality also doubting it will have any impact on the course of our politics. Ouch. This makes sense because we also think the Labour leader will not be the next First Minister, so why fake interest in who it is? This was an all-white-male contest of two, as Monica Lennon failed to get the required nominations, which is a real pity as her presence would surely have forced a debate about Labour's stance on Scottish Independence. Of the remaining contenders, Joe Fagan did not stand a chance, as he is not really popular even on his home turf in South Lanarkshire. So that left Michael Marra as the party establishment's candidate and ultimate winner. His main claim to fame so far is that he had enough baws to oppose gender self-identification against the party's official line, but not enough to stand down from the frontbench to vote against it. Marra is surely the most Burnham-compliant of the lot, which does not mean he will be the best choice to restore Labour's political capital and credibility, which have been badly mauled by Sarwar's leadership. I guess he will soon be reminded that Labour's massive Scottish surge at the 2024 general was just a one-shot deal, quite unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future.

Credibility is not a boomerang. Give it up, it doesn’t come back.

(Adam Schiff, Law & Order, 1996)

We'll negotiate with anybody, we'll help anybody into power, but you don't need to be the last word and psephologist to know what the SNP will demand in exchange for that support.

(Dave Doogan, The National Podcast, 26 August 2026)

Dave Doogan, the current, but possibly not for very long, leader of the reduced SNP group in Commons, has totally painted himself into naughty corner in a very ill-prepared intervention on The Scottish Pravda's podcast. He tried to backpedal on it as soon as he realised he had said something abysmally stupid and politically damaging, but the whole thing is available on YouTube, and there is no way Desperate Dave can claim that words were put in his mouth or that he was misunderstood. The controversial bit starts 31 minutes into the podcast, when Dave starts ad-libbing about what the SNP would do to extort a second Independence Referendum from the next UK government. Dave can gesticulate all he wants now, he said it, the SNP would strike a deal with Reform UK to get the fucking referendum, which is probably not actual party policy. But never mind that Dave is not the sharpest knife in the kitchen, and has probably lost all hope of reselection at the next general, the Survation poll says that We The People do support Independence increasingly, and the trendlines of voting intentions since 2014 show it.

It's actually a clear path to recovery for the Yes camp, solely in the hands of the people, as the SNP mostly, and the Greens too, have done their best for several long years to discredit The Cause. But even the crass stupidity of entitled career politicians cannot control the people's will for very long. Survation's raw data say it's now 47.1% Yes to 43.3% No, which translates into a 52-48 Yes win if you weed out the undecideds. Ironically, that's exactly How Brexit Was Won, so that surely makes a rock-solid case for Dave to negotiate with Nigel Farage. He could even argue that Survation found that a quarter of Reform voters at the last Holyrood election would vote Yes. Just saying. But, while we are Waiting For The Godotrendum, what about the other oven-ready options at hand? Survation asked and it's a bit messy.

Basically, it's trickle-down devolution. From SW1 to Bute House, then from Bute House to City Hall, or wherever your local Council convenes. Because we have this crazy idea that Councillor Knows Best, which I would argue is false, and you could write ten volumes about what Scottish Councils got wrong over the 30 years since the big reform that gave birth to our Councils-As-We-Know-Them became reality. Just think of all the lawsuits Councils lost because they had authorised illegal unisex toilets in schools, or the yearly fascist demonstration in Glasgow, the Orange Order march Glasgow City Council has the power to perpetuate as a "cultural music parade". Remember that we have 1,227 Councillors, compared to 57 MPs and 129 MSPs, so the probability of having a total fucking moron as your Councillor is about seven times that of having a total fucking moron as your parliamentarian. Just saying. Nevertheless we also opine that some decisions are better left in the capable hands of Andy Burnham and Humphrey Appleby, but which ones is left untold and unspecified. Obviously defence and foreign policy, but why not health, justice and education? Now that is something Comrade Doogan could negotiate with Nigel Farage.

We might not, in fact we absolutely will not, share the views of whoever we help into power, but if it unlocks the door to our independence future, well then we will absolutely do whatever we have to do to deliver that.

(Dave Doogan, The National Podcast, 26 August 2026)

Anyone means anyone. The point is to leave their politics behind and repay back to Scotland for an independent future.

(Dave Doogan, The National Podcast, 26 August 2026)

Survation also polled our voting intentions for the next general election, and there is nothing new here. It again confirms that 2024 was a one-off and the biggest exercise in tactical voting in Scotland's history, and probably in the UK's history too. Our priority was to dislodge the Tories by any means necessary and we did it, we were part of it. Now the job is done, the priority is gone, and we're back to business as usual. Which, in the post-referendum political landscape, means that the Westminster vote pretty much aligns with the Holyrood vote, give or take. There have been four Full Scottish polls of Westminster voting intentions since the Holyrood election, and none shows signs of a Burnham Bounce North of the North. The SNP's voting intentions may be mediocre in comparison to 2015 and even 2019, but it's still enough to bag a massive majority of seats. The SNP certainly have to thank first-past-the-post for that, and probably Reform UK too, but you just don't look a gift horse in the arse, or do you?

Survation then asked specifically about Andy Burnham, and the results are good for him. It's just a snapshot of first impressions, but you definitely get the vibe that he passed and things can only get better. Obviously, our favourable view of Andy Burnham and our positive first impression do not extend to Scottish Labour. Notice that we simultaneously agree that Burnham is making life better for Labour, but the change of leader does not make a difference. Which may be just one more of these contradictions pollsters love to catch with confirmation questions, or just reflect our view of Scottish Labour, not the Labour Party as a whole. The Scottish Labour leadership election was still ongoing when the poll was conducted, but we know now that Michael Marra is The Chosen One. His first public statement, supporting a Trumpian "Drill, Baby, Drill" policy, is not encouraging, and he even made it sound parochial. "What's good for the North East is good for the nation" is definitely not the brightest USP. It's not a goose and gander story here, mate. Don't expect our positive feelings towards Burnham to rub off on you.

I have to end on a personal note, for once. It's been three weeks now since Bosco, my Precious Prince, passed away. From the corner of my eye, I still see him. Over the whisper of the wind, I still hear him. He was much more than "just a dog", because no dog is ever "just a dog". I adopted him, part of a rescue of street dogs from Ceuta, almost eleven years ago when he was still a puppy, not even one year old. For the last eight years, after major changes in my life, it was just him and me, me and him, just the two of us together for each other. He was not the most sociable of canines, and I did not care as I an not the most sociable of humans either, but he was a pure and gentle soul, without one bad bone in his body. He was all I had, and I was all he had. He was my rock, my soulmate, my best friend. He was my shadow and I was his. He loved long walkies and I always let him lead, decide where we went and how long we spent there.

He was one of a kind, the best dog there ever was, but aren't they all? He was only eleven years and eight months old, gone far too soon, but he had been diagnosed last year with kidney failure. As all dog-owned humans know, this is lethal for our angels, it's just a question of time. I hoped we would have two or three more years, but we only got ten months. He was still as loving and cuddly as when he was a puppy, but not as active, and his health deteriorated suddenly and very quickly over the last two weeks of his life, as if he had decided it was time to let go. A last emergency treatment eased the symptoms a bit, but wasn't enough. I find some comfort in the fact that he died peacefully at home, lying on his favourite blanket next to me. I had a dog-shaped hole in my heart, and now it's neatly patched by a piece of himself Bosco left behind. I will always love you, my sweet boy.

Dogs come into our lives to teach us about love, they depart to teach us about loss. A new dog never replaces an old dog, it merely expands the heart. If you have loved many dogs, your heart is very big.
(Erica Jong)

Dolly Rebecca Parton Dean

(19 January 1946 - 25 August 2026)

Bosco, the best dog there ever was

(circa 5 January 2015 - 3 September 2026)

Jeremy's Den

24/09/2026

You Gotta Put Up With The Pain

You Gotta Put Up With The Pain