You would have to have a heart of stone not to have bathed in the deliciously saccharine waters of Trump’s state visit. The sheer Disneyland of the pageantry, the gold coaches, the brass bands, crowns and tiaras are the sort of Olde England fantasy that obsesses so many Americans, and this President in particular. The Royal family are past masters of these sorts of spectaculars. A clever little touch was to surround Trump with some of the filthiest of filthy rich people in the world. If only Peter Mandelson had been invited! But he was there in spirit, even if it was an malevolent one. It was Sky’s splendid Beth Rigby who ever so graciously alluded to the elephant in the room, which the President immediately shot with the withering ‘I don’t know him’. That must have been the cruellest cut of all. Airbrushed out of history like a liquidated Soviet member of the politbureau.
It’s all very good Trump expressing his disappointment with Putin but what action is he going to take? Russia has invaded the airspace of Poland, Romania and Estonia and today has cyber attacked major European airports including Heathrow. I can understand Trump’s frustration with those countries who seek sanctions but pour billions of dollars into the Russian war machine by buying their oil, but Putin is pushing to see just how strong NATO is and how far he would have to go before Article 5 is acted upon. Churchill is meant to have said that, ‘Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing once all the other possibilities have been exhausted’. Well, there aren’t many possibilities left to exhaust. Trump fantasies about being a strongman, now is his chance to prove it. At the moment the leader of the western world looks weak.
But for all the fawning, all the investment, what’s in it for Starmer at home? How does it improve people’s lives? That is his dilemma. Will it dent the commanding lead of Reform & scupper the king of the north’s potential coup which is gaining traction. How is Starmer going to woo the party unfaithful at conference?
I really don’t understand the all the gnashing of teeth and oh woe is meism about the exit stage right of Danny Kruger, a Christian fundamentalist with very black and white views on what being a Conservative means. He is not mainstream nor does his outlook have the potential to tempt back those voters who really want to vote Conservative but can’t bring themselves to do it just yet. He is part of that cult that flies in the face of history believing that elections can no longer won on the centre ground. It is not the Conservative Party who is dead but his form of prehistoric Conservatism. His relationship with Farage will be agonising to watch. It won’t last. Like Freddy Krueger he will be Reform’s New Nightmare. Unless, Liz Truss tries to parachute in assuming she remembers to actually wear a parachute.
Badenoch is being criticised for being a bit too laid back about the Conservative emigrants to Reform. She can’t say what I suspect she thinks, namely that Farage is welcome to have all the misfits and nutters that have been undermining successive Tory leaders for years. So rather than dancing a jig, she has to say how sad she is. So who is next? I would have thought that Suella is bonkers enough to be on the watch list. She will only go when she has run out of leadership bid road. Boris? Don’t be daft. He still believes in the second coming. Moggy? Possible. But one thing that I am pretty sure about is that a major defection is most likely to be announced just before Kemi’s conference speech to cause maximum disruption. If that’s the case it’s time for a ‘fight fight and fight again for the party that I love’ speech. That defectors are sleep walking into the unknown and warning that when you go on the chicken run the fox will always get you.
I am admirer of Speaker Hoyle. I was in Parliament with his dad who was a friend. But who on earth is advising him to complain to the Home Secretary about dropping the cases of two men accused of spying for China? Firstly, she is not responsible for dropping the case it is the DPP, who has to be above politics. If he says that the cases don’t meet the evidential test of ‘is there a realistic prospect of conviction’ you can rest assured that there isn’t. And a private prosecution wouldn’t get off the ground. Mr Speaker should know better than to step into an arena he has no right to be in.