Mary Austin #FBPE #RejoinEU #BetterBeforeBrexit

Retired from the NHS. Love travel, theatre, reading, music, WHU and spending special times with family and friends. Historian, Socialist, and ardent European.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Breaking? Hardly.

All this announcement tells us is that Andy Burnham has secured the support of a large majority of Labour MPs. It tells us absolutely nothing about the wishes of the hundreds of thousands of Labour members across the country because, in my view, they were deliberately denied the opportunity to have their say.

For generations, Labour has proudly described itself as a democratic movement, built upon the principle that power flows from its members. Yet, on this occasion, many members will feel that principle has been cast aside. Instead of allowing an open leadership contest in which the membership could debate the issues, hear the arguments and ultimately choose its leader, the Parliamentary Labour Party has ensured that the outcome was settled within Westminster.

Whether one supports Andy Burnham or not is almost beside the point. This is about something far more important than any individual. It is about the democratic rights of Labour members. Thousands joined the party, delivered leaflets in all weathers, knocked on doors, raised money, and devoted countless hours because they believed their voices mattered. To many of them, those voices have now been silenced.

The support of MPs may secure the leadership of the Labour Party, but it does not provide a mandate to become Prime Minister. That authority belongs to the British people alone and can only be granted through a General Election. Until then, no number of parliamentary nominations can substitute for the judgement of the electorate.

The Parliamentary Labour Party may well have achieved the outcome it desired, but in doing so it risks deepening the sense among many ordinary members that their role is valued only when elections need to be fought, not when the future direction of their own party is to be decided. That is a dangerous message for any democratic political party to send to the very people upon whom its future depends.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

The Question Nobody in Westminster Seems Willing to Ask

Watching the political coverage over recent days, I have found myself asking a remarkably simple question.

Where are the voices of Labour Party members?

Turn on any political programme, read almost any newspaper, or listen to the endless commentary from Westminster, and the discussion follows an almost identical pattern. The focus is upon parliamentary nominations, the views of MPs, the calculations of political strategists and the latest manoeuvrings inside Westminster. Every conversation seems to revolve around those at the top of politics.

Yet something is conspicuously absent.

Hundreds of thousands of people have chosen to become members of the Labour Party. They pay their subscriptions, campaign in all weathers, knock on doors, deliver leaflets, raise funds and dedicate countless hours to supporting the movement they believe in. Whether they supported Sir Keir Starmer, Andy Burnham, or someone else entirely is not the immediate issue.

The question is much simpler than that.

Why has so little attention been paid to what they think?

Whatever view one takes of the current leadership contest, surely the opinions of the party’s own members deserve examination. If significant numbers of members feel excluded from the process, that is a political story. If they are content with what has happened, that too is a political story. Either way, their voices form an essential part of understanding the moment.

Instead, the overwhelming impression is that Westminster has once again become absorbed in talking to itself.

Political journalism performs a vital function in a democracy. It should challenge those in power, question accepted narratives and ensure that every significant aspect of a story is explored. Yet on this issue, there appears to have been remarkably little curiosity about the views of the ordinary men and women who make up the membership of one of Britain’s major political parties.

That omission matters.

Political parties do not exist solely because MPs sit in Parliament. They exist because ordinary people choose to support them, campaign for them and believe in the values they represent. When those people are scarcely heard during one of the most significant moments in a party’s recent history, it is surely reasonable to ask why.

This article is not an argument for or against any individual candidate.

It is an argument for asking better questions.

If political journalism no longer examines what party members think, who will? If Westminster commentators speak only to other Westminster commentators, who is speaking to the people outside the Westminster bubble?

Perhaps those are precisely the questions that need to be asked.

Because democracy is not sustained by politicians alone.

It is sustained by the people.

[Clive Lewis MP @labourlewis]

The many takes flying around about John Healey, resignation gossip and national security spending miss a fundamental point.

In Finland, where people have a strong social safety net and a real sense of shared national purpose, around 80% say they would be prepared to defend their country. In the UK, that figure is closer to 30%.

That should tell us something.

Until we change the financial architecture of our economy and bring the essentials of life out of the grip of corporate extraction and into public ownership, we will always be told to choose between bombs and butter.

But the reality is we need both.

Modern hybrid warfare means every public service is part of our national resilience. Energy, water, housing, health, transport, food security and social care are not separate from defence. They are defence.

If we want people to defend the country, we have to build a country people believe is worth defending. A thriving state. A fair economy. A society where everyone feels they have a stake.

I spoke about this on Peston on Monday night.

[The Lady J of Tay @brawday]

BBC slammed by Ross Greer live on air over framing of racist disorder in Belfast “Those were racist rioters. If you're burning the houses down of people who are not white, you are a racist rioter, you're a criminal, you are a scumbag.”
Greer added: “The BBC should not be legitimizing these people by calling them anti-immigration campaigners.
https://t.co/jaEtbl2jpB

[Martin Bückley #DoneWithPolitics @MartinBuckby]

The Labour Government’s 12 month break on HGV Vehicle Excise Duty, announced today, will save the company I work for approximately 2 million pounds.

Thank you Labour

Thank you Sir Keir.

[dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠 @dave43law]

Since 19th March - 67 votes in Parliament

Farage has not voted in a single one

£8216 per month before tax paid by the taxpayer

2 months of achieving net zero for those who voted him in to Clacton

He is just laughing at the taxpayer

[Ell 🌱 @rdg_elliott]

My thoughts are with Farage and the Daily Mail at this difficult time 🫶🏼

[Mary Austin #FBPE #RejoinEU #BetterBeforeBrexit @MaryAusti]

@louderry @yolandaz And that, in a nutshell, is the trouble with this country.

[Matthew Syed @matthewsyed]

The ministers urging Starmer to go are feeding the hysteria. The next leader will be subject to instant leadership speculation and the next, and the next, whether Labour, Reform or Tory. Britain is becoming ungovernable. And the media fixation on this tittle tattle is not helping

[ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret]

Whatever complaints MPs have about Keir Starmer, they are now descending into the kind of headless chickenry that - whatever and whoever the outcome - will make the situation even worse for Labour. If there is a grand plan starring Catherine West and a few PPSs, then it doesn’t feel terribly thought through. A period of calm would do none of them any harm. The general election is a fair way off. The next legislative programme is about to be unveiled. There are better ways to reach such an important decision and better times too. You are MPs not commentators who exist to feed a frenzy.

[Peter Stefanovic @PeterStefanovi2]

Let’s call this bull**** out TOGETHER

The 200,000 illegal migrants figure Farage is using is over several years and let’s remind ourselves how we got into this mess in the first place - BREXIT

And now in threatening to punish those parts of the country where people don’t vote his way the Reform party leader is betraying the basic principles of democracy - its shameless and grotesque bullying which shows nothing but contempt for voters

[Ryder 🇮🇪 🇪🇺 @Ryder56004614]

I’m just watching Jenrick slagging off the conservatives and how they ruined the country and were useless with immigration.

He seems to have forgotten that until they kicked him out last year he was a the Conservative Minister of State for Immigration (2022–2023) 🤷

[Tom Jamieson @jamiesont]

Keir Starmer has been a disappointment, but anyone calling him 'Britain's Worst Ever Prime Minister' in a world where Liz Truss & Boris Johnson exist must have been kicked in the head by a horse

[James Tate @JamesTate121]

*BRITISH WRITER PENS THE BEST DESCRIPTION OF TRUMP*
Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:
A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump's limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.
I don't say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it's a fact. He doesn't even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn't just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It's all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don't. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He's not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He's more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless or female – and he kicks them when they are down. So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy' is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and most are.
• You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it's impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

[Peter Jukes @peterjukes]

His closest aide sentenced to 10.5 years for spying for the Russians. Failing to disclose £5m donation and how he bought a house in Clacton. A decade of school antisemitism and racism. Cavorting with Neo Nazis and planning mass deportations. What is the media love about Farage?

[Amys Here 🇨🇦 @amys_here]

Break the internet sharing this please

[Harry Eccles @Heccles94]

It would be pretty embarrassing for reform if we kept sharing this, so probs best not

[DENISE ONEILL 💙TheNHS @DENISEONEILL6]

Shall we all re-tweet this?

[The Daily Britain @dailybritainonx]

Quote of the day 👇