I don’t think of Lewis as someone resorting to clever tricks, he’s never struck me as the kind of weasel who leaves his audience wondering “who knows”.

Why is that important? It’s just one of the endless variations of how most people think they’re above average.

But most people aren’t malicious vindictive bastards who know full damn well they’re going out of their way to attack people.

Great piece. Except for “I genuinely think they think they are saving the BBC from itself.”

After making clear that someone was malicious, devious, and self-aware enough to be too embarrassed to even make eye contact - you have to recognise they know they are not acting altruistically.

But no matter how bad it gets there’s always the urge to attack Trump’s critics.

“Nobody serious claims Trump is a Nazi.”

Plenty of serious people have done just that (famously JD Vance at one point).

Will “serious” journalism ever accept people criticising Trump without being nice about it?

“Revenge is one of Trump’s three recurring impulses. The others are making money and dominating the airwaves.”

It’s refreshing to see a journalist able & willing to speak plainly instead of an endless search for palatable explanations to justify Trump’s thinking.

Congrats @edwardluce.bsky.social

Strident but hardly brilliant, sounds like your typical old man railing against science and technology.

RE climate change: "Florida condo prices plunged more extremely than prices elsewhere in the country" says the private banking team at JP Morgan. privatebank.jpmorgan.com/nam/en/insig...

Although I would absolutely agree that “shake it up” shouldn’t mean “by changing the budget constantly” just to recognise your main point.

My impression of policies generally is they can stay the course and still be disastrously misguided. How useful an indicator is their shelf life?

Reeve’s main challenge seems to me a lack of political ability. It may be that it’s more important she learns to shake things up than keep on as before.

What are the comparable scenarios, in terms of new governments responding to national challenges amid global crisis, in which multi year certainty has been delivered before?

It feels like a naive expectation to me, but stories of how it has been achieved before would provide a nice hopeful boost.

I didn’t get the impression he’s using them for relationships

Oh good it only took the Gallagher brothers a couple of decades of misery and let downs for them to reconcile. Great choice of metaphor. Inspiring.

The thread is about countries in Europe…

How truly spineless. A mildly rebellious backbencher could be described in the same terms.

This is a Home Secretary presiding over mass detention of pensioners and the like for peaceful protest.

But hard right figures dedicated to inspiring violence - will barely criticise them.

I’ll never understand headlines that to me, a) convey no news, b) prominently repeat verbatim the words of people who lack credibility, c) do not even hint at the information content of the article

It’s like these days we’ve decided to make us all constantly feel like we’re being played.

I always think of that now, especially after so many news stories about inability of institutions to follow the data when dealing with bad actors.

If the gap is explained by RIO opinions being based only on data officially provided to them, the root cause may be “naivety” rather than “data access”.

When I had unfortunate cause to look into workplace harassment (ie misconduct), evidence was self-regulation is mainly about defending institutional reputations.

Misconduct also more prevalent in charitable sectors where nobility of the cause meant that important folk “couldn’t possibly” act badly