Well, it either became self aware much faster than I did or it learnt to generate sympathy for its supposed failings much more acceptably than i have managed. I’m pretty sure I’ve stated I’m an embarrassment before but maybe I wasn’t sorry enough to repeat the mea culpa enough times

He literally is the worst kind of grifting liar, hell bent on stoking trouble to feed his lie machine. Scum.

The point is Crace’s crass jokes are not cool or funny. I subscribe to the Guardian. I am rethinking this.

It was distasteful and very uncomfortable to read. Crace’s assertions re the PM and his feelings towards the chancellor were just baseless and harmful conjecture. Imagine she had just found out a relative was dying or other examples of a situation that may cause crying.

I understand the sketch is an irrelevant and comical take on PMQ’s but I take exception to the words and tone used towards the obvious emotion distress of Rachel Reeves. Crace has no idea what she was upset about but decided to lampoon her for laughs.

I’m not a fan of Rachel Reeves; in general but also, for full disclosure, I’m disabled and so have been set to be scuttled due to cost saving benefits reforms. However, I am a human being. This article is a disgusting, nasty and unfeeling mocking of the chancellor.

The money grabbing, amoral, disgusting, dangers to the national good twats.

Apt ending to inspire my moan abt something depressing; I’m an absolute sadsack so watch a lot of politics live on bbc, and all the time one hears con/lab talk about the crumbling bs of uk & they say “it needs reform and we’re committed to reform” & it’s like free advertising for the twats!

Yeah but try putting “Probably the worst political/analytical instinct of progressives and some leftists is the belief that the solution to our political economy problems are new indices based on lower quality and lower frequency economic data without much methodological justification” on a plinth

I’m a third rate thinker myself but I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

I’m English. Let’s not pretend this document heralded some revolutionary expansion of rights to all men. It was significant the basis of law that meant the king couldn’t just execute lords without having a reason. But like most things it was mostly about taxation. It’s not some holy constitution :)

Wait for the eye-for-an-eye part starting around 5 minute mark

You should hear how much more mad he sounds when he sounds relatively coherent. This isn’t even a contrary thing. When he’s spouting his incoherent catchphrase crap it’s kinda numbing but when he talks normally and reveals the raw human madness it’s even worse…

youtu.be/y4CqF4hjCGI?...

Just normal things in normal times

What is happening

Make it make nonsense seem ridiculous anymore

Tbh I may have already given up and these words are just my learned thoughts running on fumes. I honestly don’t know.

The frustrating thing is that cos there’s enough people locked-in to vote reform that the only credible electoral defence is to have people vote labour (which many are disinclined to do and I find it hard to try inspire them to do), that it’d only take a change of WORDS from Starmer to prevent it.

I’m of the view his intelligence is irrelevant; what matters his absolutely remarkable amorality when it comes to his financial interests