Editor: What can the reader of this latest political histeria of a reification of Jewish Victimhood! While the crimes of Gaza Genocide, and its political corilary of the Lebanon Genocide, are the proof that the Myth of that victiomhood, the heue and cry of the toxic Zionist/Murderious Cadre. The reader in the neverending fictional creshendo of Israle’s ‘Right To Exist’ merde, via Zanny Mentions Beddoes mendacious chatter!
U.C.L.A. Considers New Tactics to Combat Antisemitism
The Trump administration has sued the university, saying it didn’t do enough to protect Jews on campus.
…
Some of the recommendations in Thursday’s report fall beyond U.C.L.A.’s authority. For example, the group suggested that the University of California as a whole consider using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
The definition, developed in 2016, describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” But the definition’s critics have said that accompanying examples, such as contending that Israel’s existence is “a racist endeavor,” appear intended to suppress free speech.
Dozens of American universities have adopted the definition, including Columbia and Harvard last year. In March, the University of California, Berkeley, agreed as a part of a legal settlement that it would continue to consider the definition and its examples “whenever investigating or assessing claims of discrimination or harassment against Jews or Israeli individuals.”
The president of the University of California system, James B. Milliken, did not immediately commit to embracing the definition across its 10 campuses. But Mr. Milliken hailed U.C.L.A.’s efforts as “important and impressive” and said, “Antisemitism is antithetical to the core values of the University of California, and it is essential that we continue to demonstrate this principle through our policies and actions.”
Good morning. In the narrow window of time set by us excitable lobby journalists, the push to topple Keir Starmer failed when the sun set on Westminster yesterday: there was no “big beast” resignation from the cabinet and no leadership challenge launched.
The PM stood firm, telling cabinet to back him or sack him, and insouciantly started replacing the various parliamentary private secretaries and junior ministers who resigned yesterday in an effort to pressure him to go. The consensus of commentary vertiginously changed once again. It was not the end – perhaps Starmer had seen off the challenge.
But just as it was premature to say a challenge was make or break yesterday, it would be equally premature to say that he is safe. The King’s Speech today, in which the Labour government’s agenda for the next parliamentary session will be set out, has created an interlude in which all sides think it is polite to stay quiet.
The PM had a brief meeting with Wes Streeting this morning at No 10 but both sides are keeping schtum about what was said. We will have to wait until Thursday to see if there is a more concerted push from the ambitious Health Secretary, who is due to make a media intervention that day anyway because the NHS’s latest waiting-list data is being released.
An extra day could allow Streeting to get his ducks in a row. Note that his natural supporters on the right of the party are not yet united behind the idea of challenging Starmer right now – many of their names appeared in an open letter signed by 110 MPs yesterday pledging support for the Prime Minister.
The most damning development for Starmer’s long-term prospects was a statement from Labour’s 11 affiliated unions this morning. They declared: “It’s clear that the Prime Minister will not lead Labour into the next election, and at some stage a plan will have to be put in place for the election of a new leader.”
That’s every union, from the left-wingers of Sharon Graham’s Unite through to the once reliably leadership-supporting moderates at Usdaw and Unison. This puncturing of the life raft will prove more significant than any ministerial resignation we have seen so far.
Keir today, gone…?
by James Heale
It has been an utterly surreal day in parliament. This morning Wes Streeting’s allies briefed that the Health Secretary intends to resign tomorrow and challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership. But this afternoon the Prime Minister stood at the despatch box giving his response to the King’s Speech, manfully ploughing on. On a day when constitutional nicety met with political reality, Starmer signalled that he intends to keep fighting until the bitter end.
Starmer is often viewed as a wooden parliamentarian, ill-attuned to the mood of the House. Yet such was the extent of the absurdity this afternoon that even he could successfully make light of his current situation. With almost 100 Labour MPs calling for him to quit, he made a joke at his own expense. Mentioning backbencher Naz Shah’s new book, he noted that it had been endorsed by ‘well over a hundred’ members of the House. ‘At last Mr Speaker,’ he said, ‘a list that we can all get behind.’ Streeting, sat near him on the frontbench, certainly enjoyed that one.
It was a moment of levity in an otherwise black day for the PM. Kemi Badenoch, speaking for the opposition, had fun at Starmer’s expense. The Tory leader asked why the government has ‘learnt no lessons’ from its time in power so far. ‘I suppose the Health Secretary has been a bit distracted lately, hasn’t he?’ she quipped, asking Streeting: ‘Why don’t you just do your job?’ She added that she felt ‘sorry for Labour backbenchers’, whose legacy will now be ‘breakfast clubs and Peter Mandelson’.
Outside the chamber, Labour MPs continue to plot. As Streeting’s conspirators plan their pitch, the soft left is completely split. Senior figures fret that Angela Rayner simply is not up to the job, amid concerns about her character and HMRC’s inquiry into her tax affairs. Andy Burnham, fresh from his train journey south, is meanwhile still not able to find a suitable parliamentary seat in which to stand. So there is increasingly momentum behind Ed Miliband – recognised by all wings as an effective minister – as the only viable candidate on the pitch who can take on Streeting.
The final word ought to go to Sir Ed Davey, who called today’s speech the ‘most surreal’ Humble Address he has ever experienced, out of the 23 he has heard. ‘Everyone in this House and everyone in the country knows this Prime Minister may soon not be in power,’ he said. Starmer knows that better than anyone else.
Rubbing in the insult Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, issued a decree to “permit” the parade to proceed, saying that Red Square would not be attacked. This came shortly after Ukraine and Russia agreed to a three-day ceasefire brokered by America, though by May 10th both sides were accusing the other of having violated it. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, speaking after the parade, said he thought the war was “coming to an end”.
…
As of May 2026, Ukrainian forces are conducting regular, high-volume drone strikes deep into Russian territory, frequently utilizing long-range, domestically produced drones, with reports suggesting some production or assembly of components occurs in European nations. These stealthy, often AI-enabled, strikes target oil depots, airfields, and logistics hubs thousands of kilometers from the front lines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of the 2026 Drone Campaign:
Manufacturing & Supply: Reports indicate that a significant portion of Ukrainian drone production and component sourcing has moved to countries like Germany, Great Britain, Czechia, and the Baltic states to avoid Russian strikes.
Tactics & Scope: Ukraine has escalated to using thousands of long-range drones, sometimes over 7,000 in a month, targeting sites from Moscow to the Urals. Recent operations, such as “Operation Spiderweb,” involved coordinated, deep-penetration strikes.
Targeting & Impact: Attacks have targeted major infrastructure, including oil refineries in the Leningrad Oblast, hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian border.
NATO Airspace Incidents: There have been incidents of drone activity near NATO borders (Latvia, Lithuania), with some reports of Ukrainian drones, possibly misdirected by electronic warfare, crashing on NATO territory.
Russia’s Response: Russia has experienced difficulties in defending against these widespread attacks, which are impacting military capabilities and causing severe damage to infrastructure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
Note: The situation is highly dynamic, and claims about the origin of launches, particularly from foreign territory, are part of intense information warfare and military intelligence operations. [1, 2[
Good morning. Keir Starmer will try to save his political career this morning by giving a speech in which he will admit mistakes and say “incremental change won’t cut it”. The most immediate consequence of the speech will be whether it makes Catherine West – the backbencher threatening to launch a leadership challenge this morning – think twice.
West has said she might step down her plot if Starmer shows sufficient rhetorical fire in his belly. But that will be quite a difficult metric for outside observers to judge – and so we will have to wait and see how West responds to the speech. As she told me in an interview at the weekend, her decision to challenge Starmer was done on the fly – she had not read the party rules on launching a contest before announcing) and motivated by a visceral reaction to the results in which one of her best friends lost their safe Labour council seat in North London.
…
Editor: There is nothing so full of political pathos as manufactured by The New Statesman, that long ago betried Sidney and Beatrice Webb, with significant support from George Bernard Shaw and other Fabian Society members.
Newspaper Reader.
Lindsey German
Good morning.
How bad did the election results have to be before Keir Starmer resigned? Worse than the loss of 44 Labour councillors in Newcastle? Or the wipeout of Labour members in the Welsh Senedd? Or the collapse to Reform in the former mining areas of Barnsley and Wakefield? Or the rout of Labour across much of inner London to the Greens, including the latter winning three boroughs outright and sending several more into no overall control?
Starmer’s response has been to say he ‘will not walk away’ – yet that is clearly what voters want him to do. Everywhere, reports from canvassers are the same: whatever the other issues motivating them, intense dislike of the prime minister was high on the agenda. At present his cabinet are publicly rallying round: he will do a big speech on Monday, promising a reset. Already he has announced the appointment of former prime minister Gordon Brown and former interim leader Harriet Harman as advisers. I can’t imagine what good he thinks this will do him.
The simple truth is this: Labour cannot begin to regain votes until Starmer goes. And the longer he stays the more he will strengthen Reform. It is a mark of the inability of Labour politicians to think clearly outside their own narrow factional interests that this truth has not already forced Starmer out. Instead leading cabinet figures and allies of supposed prince over the water Andy Burnham are putting their own interests before the urgent need to get rid of Starmer and they will pay a price. For this result will mark the end of Labour in many areas once regarded as its heartlands. The history of Scotland in the last decade demonstrates that there is no automatic likelihood of the party bouncing back.
And why should it? Labour, founded to represent the trade unions in the electoral field, has been on a long march away from the working class it is meant to stand for. It has presided over governments of privatisers who have seen a working class fall in living standards and done little to change anything. It has seen students forced to pay higher fees and get into debt and done nothing about it. It has allowed employers and landlords free rein, only acting to make the most minimal changes to protect workers. Its ‘solution’ to the housing crisis is to allow developers to build unaffordable houses while doing virtually no council house building. It has also echoed the far right in scapegoating migrants, waving the flag and promising far more money on ‘defence’.
The result? Reform’s right-wing populism has won in many places especially in the old industrial areas where secure and relatively well-paid jobs have been replaced by the opposite, as workers are forced to accept ever worse conditions in companies owned by billionaires. And those repulsed by Reform’s politics are also alienated by Labour’s mimicking of them, so look for alternatives to the left. The Greens and Plaid Cymru have been the big winners from this trend.
One reason that Labour politicians are so incapable of movement in the face of this is that there needs to be fundamental change in its policies – but that isn’t going to happen, because it would mean dismantling decades of New Labour policies. So the decline of Labour and Labourism will continue, surely accelerated by these results, but with its adherents unable to comprehend how and why it has happened.
This article. published in Philosophy 70 (1995), 243-62 and reproduced here by permission of the Editor, is derived from (but not a transcript of) ‘Better than the Stars’, my 1978 radio portrait of F. P. Ramsey, streamable from http://sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/20145. Page numbers after quotations from Ramsey refer to F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical Papers, edited by D. H. Mellor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
I should like to let Ramsey have the last word. In the summer of 1929, shortly before he died, he wrote a note on ‘Philosophy’ which Braithwaite published in his 1931 collection of Ramsey’s work [and is republished as Chapter 1 of my 1990 edition of Ramsey’s Philosophical Papers]. Most of Ramsey’s work is within philosophy rather than about it; but this note expresses his view of the subject as well as his attitude towards it and his way of doing it. So here, to conclude, are some excerpts:
Philosophy must be of some use and we must take it seriously; it must clear our thoughts and so our actions. Or else it is a disposition we have to check, and an enquiry to see that this is so; i.e. the chief proposition of philosophy is that philosophy is nonsense. …
And again we must then take seriously that it is nonsense, and not pretend, as Wittgenstein does, that it is important nonsense! … In philosophy we take the propositions we make in science and everyday life, and try to exhibit them in a logical system with primitive terms and definitions, etc. Essentially a philosophy is a system of definitions or, only too often, a system of descriptions of how definitions might be given …
I used to worry myself about the nature of philosophy through excessive scholasticism. I could not see how we could understand a word and not be able to recognise whether a proposed definition of it was or was not correct. I did not realise the vagueness of the whole idea of understanding, the reference it involves to a multitude of performances any of which may fail and require to be restored …
Philosophy is not concerned with special problems of definition but only with general ones: it does not propose to define particular terms of art or science, but to settle e. g. problems which arise in the definition of any such term or in the relation of any term in the physical world to the terms of experience …
[But] it seems to me that in the process of clarifying our thought we come to terms and sentences which we cannot elucidate in the obvious manner by defining their meaning. For instance, … theoretical terms we cannot define, but we can explain the way in which they are used, and in this explanation we are forced to look not only at the objects which we are talking about, but at our own mental states …
I find this self-consciousness inevitable in philosophy except in a very limited field. We are driven to philosophise because we do not know clearly what we mean; the question is always ‘What do I mean by x?’ And only very occasionally can we settle this without reflecting on meaning. But it is not only an obstacle, this necessity of dealing with meaning; it is doubtless an essential clue to the truth. If we neglect it I feel we may get into the absurd position of the child in the following dialogue: ‘Say breakfast.’ ‘Can’t.’ ‘What can’t you say?’ ‘Can’t say breakfast.’
But the necessity of self-consciousness must not be used as a justification for nonsensical hypotheses; we are doing philosophy not theoretical psychology, and our analyses of our statements, whether about meaning or about anything else, must be such as we can understand.
Headline: We’re entering a sectarian age — playing to extremes wins votes
Sub-headline: A Green Party activist who responded to a solemn post commemorating the victims of the October 7 attacks with a laughter emoji has just been elected.
Editor: I provide a sampler of Mr. Colevile’ s retorical posturing:
…
But one of the biggest stories of the local elections this year — and certainly the most depressing — has been the rise not of MPs but councillors for Gaza. The Henry Jackson Society think tank, which rebranded itself “Sectarian Watch” for the vote count, has been following 171 “Muslim sectarian” council candidates: that is, candidates for whom issues such as Palestine or Kashmir are not a feature of campaigning but the entire core of it.
…
And of course, there has been a reaction. The Jewish parts of north London are now monolithically Conservative: in Golders Green, site of the latest antisemitic atrocity, the leading Tory candidate received an extraordinary 69 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, Rupert Lowe of Restore — the party for those who think Nigel Farage is frankly a bit wet on the whole Muslim thing — has led its local offshoot, Great Yarmouth First, to a crushing win in East Anglia, although to be fair its campaign focused rather more on seeing off the threat of rule from Norwich than the need to re-Christianise the streets.
…
As George Galloway repeatedly proved during his parliamentary career, candidates who get elected on an anti-Israel ticket rarely place a high priority on sorting out the bin collections, or dealing with constituents’ other concerns. Indeed, their incentive is to cater even more narrowly than usual to a particular slice of the electorate, even though there are plenty of constituents of other faiths, skin colours and backgrounds who find themselves locked out of local politics.
…
And of course this cycle feeds on itself. The more voters defect to the Greens and Muslim independents, the more pressure Labour will be under to pander to the Gaza vote to win them back. And social media definitely doesn’t help, by privileging those with the most extreme views.
Just look at the career of Mothin Ali. When he made that speech, the Green Party promised a full investigation. It must have gone well. Within 16 months he’d won the ballot to be deputy leader.
…
Editor: That the pressing question of the ‘October 7 attacks’ against the Zionist Faschist State were the product of a protrated genocidal attack, on the whole of Gaza, aided and abettoed by American money and materiel. Place the self-serving denuded political chatter of Mr. Colevile’s ascription, of the irrelevance of local elections, to the concerns of citizens and their extended families demonstartes an inexcusable myopia!
The Reader might wonder, whether or not, either Micklethwait or Wooldridge, have been brought back by Zanny Menton Beddoes, as experts on wheather Putin is losing his grip?
Editor: Reader just by the hyperbolic tone of this collection of paragraphs, this can’t be the measured tones of Micklethwait or Wooldridge, these Oxbridgers would quale at such feline tones!
IT ARRIVED NOT as an event but as a sensation, felt everywhere at once: Vladimir Putin has led Russia into a dead-end and nobody has a map for what comes next. The first manifestation is a shift in the language used by senior officials, regional governors and businessmen: they have stopped using the first-person plural when talking about the actions of authorities in the country.
As recently as last spring, everything was “we” and “ours”. Mr Putin’s war on Ukraine may be reckless and failing, but it was shared. “We” were inside it, and it would be better for all of “us” if it ended sooner. Now they describe what is happening as “his” story, not “ours”. Not our project, not our agenda, not our war.
His decisions are described as “strange”. Even stranger is the fact that he decides anything at all. It is not only about falling approval ratings. The future is no longer discussed in terms of what Mr Putin will decide, but as something that will unfold independently of him—and possibly already without him.
This shift in language does not signal a rebellion. The authoritarian system can survive for a long time on fear, inertia and repression. It still has a monopoly on violence, but has lost its monopoly on shaping the future. In the past, the regime, for all its lies, had some project it could tout: “restoring statehood”, reasserting itself as an “energy superpower”. There was even “modernisation” before the U-turn to ultra-conservatism and war.
Editor: A change of tone manifest itself: Irony of a kind?
The irony is that Mr Putin started the war to preserve power and the system he has created. Now, for the first time since the conflict began, Russians are starting to imagine a future without him. This is down to a confluence of four factors.
First is the growing cost of fighting. The war in Ukraine was meant to be a special military operation conducted by selected groups who received financial incentives for their trouble, while the rest of society carried on as normal. This model crumbled as the war grew in length and scale. It has led to higher inflation and taxes, neglected infrastructure, increased censorship, endless prohibitions. It is not a national war, but it is paid for nationally—and society is not being offered any purpose in return.
Second is a growing demand for rules among elites who have been forced back into Russia, along with their capital. Previously their property rights were outsourced to the West. They used London courts, offshore structures and international arbitration to resolve conflicts or seek protection. Now conflicts must be resolved domestically, without functioning institutions. Demand for rules grows more urgent as redistribution of assets gathers pace.
In the past three years assets worth around 5trn roubles ($60bn) have been seized from private businessmen and either nationalised or handed to loyalists and cronies, the largest redistribution of property since the mass privatisation of the 1990s. It is not that the elites have suddenly discovered a taste for the rule of law or democracy. But even those loyal to the regime crave rules and institutions that can resolve conflicts fairly.
Third is the change in geopolitical climate that Mr Putin himself helped bring about. Russia sees itself as reshaping the global order. In reality it is a mere catalyst: Russia’s war on Ukraine has accelerated the crisis of Western democracy, the rise of populism and globalisation fatigue. Russia now finds itself in a world where rules are weak and where economic and technological strength and brute force dominate. In the rules-based world, Russia could exploit asymmetries: Europe’s dependence on its gas, its seat on the UN Security Council, the Soviet nuclear legacy. But Europe now buys its gas elsewhere, Russia’s Security Council seat has been devalued with the UN itself, and its nuclear blackmail has undermined the non-proliferation regime, depriving Russia of its status as an arbiter. When the order itself begins to crumble, the benefits of Putinist revisionism quickly disappear.
At the same time, Russia is suffering an identity crisis. For the first time in generations it lacks an external model to define itself against. Historically it defined itself in relation to Europe and the wider West. They were there to catch up with, to fall behind, to confront. That old axis is gone. The West as a single cultural, military and political entity is in crisis. There is no “there” against which one can define “here”. This is not an ideological issue. It is structural. Any development in Russia has to have an internal source of meaning—and the government is unable to provide it.
Fourth is growing ideological control without any balancing dividend. The previous social contract, whereby the state stayed out of people’s private lives while citizens stayed out of politics, has collapsed. In the past the system bought people’s loyalty with convenience, services and consumption. Now all it can offer is repression, intrusion and censorship—of which this year’s internet restrictions are the most striking manifestation.
The issue is not so much repression itself as repression without purpose. An ideology by definition presupposes an image of the future. This one demands discipline without offering one. People are required to be loyal without being told what future that loyalty serves. The political reality does not look desirable even for most of the technocrats involved in its construction. Optimism has been burned out from within.
Running out of moves
All four factors create a situation which in chess is known as a Zugzwang: when every move worsens the position. The system can persist for as long as Mr Putin remains in power. But his every move to preserve and expand it accelerates decay. His instinctive response may be to intensify repression. He may start another war. But these actions would only make things worse. He cannot restore the connection between power and the future. He can only make the rupture bloodier and more dangerous. ■
Newspaper Reader posits that this collection of ‘Economist Chatter’ passed through many, many hands!
StephenKMackSD's Blog 