Brexit delayed

[Banquo]

It's a lesser thing assuming you're not earning the millions each month Hamilton will.

That said if you're merely asking does that you're a former staffer to Boris Johnson who left the UK to live in a low tax regime run by a dictator inform how I'd take your commentary on the woes of Corbyn and his ilk in the UK then the answer to that is yes. It doesn't mean you don't have a point, just as concerns about Hamilton's conflicting stance doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

If someone is doing what they're doing to just try and get by for their family it's one thing, though even then if everyone did that there's a problem in society, doing it on the level Hamilton does it whilst still wrapping oneself in the Union Flag..., well it bothers me. I will not be the only one it bothers, though there'll be plenty who aren't bothered by it or consider it distinct from his comments on BLM

I was never a staffer!!!

And so your ability to be a proud Brit is dependent on where you pay your tax?

I mean, it’s very different between someone who lives in the UK but fiddles their taxes to someone who lives in another country. And Hamilton doesn’t live in the UK.

Actually, that is one of the sticks used to beat him with, that he lives in America and acts more American than British, while the same people complain about his tax arrangements when they’ve just complained he doesn’t even live in the Uk.

Button never got the same criticism, maybe because he was a stereotypical white playboy, not a black kid with actual interests outside of his sport

Don't think he lives in America, he's got a flat in Manhattan and a retirement ranch in Colorado, but is domiciled in Monaco; he did used to spend off season time in the states with his ex. Not really sure he gets beaten with sticks to be honest, he's pretty well regarded generally as far as I know. He is however on record as saying he moved to Switzerland in 2007 partly for tax reasons, and was reported to have dodged VAT on his private jet in the Paradise Papers, as well sundry criticisms from the likes of Christian Aid for not paying tax. I'm not judging, just observing.

As for Button, just like Hamilton he worked his way up into F1 through karting, not sure why you ascribe 'stereotypical white playboy' to him, He also set up a charitable foundation. If you are thinking he came from some sort of rich background, he didn't.

[Digby]

Has he though? How many weeks a year does he spend in the UK? What does he do with his money. He may well be spending more than the tax take on social programmes he thinks worthwhile (or he might be spending it on caviar for all I know). He either has a good point or he doesn't. Without a minute examination of his finances, I'm not prepared to say he shouldn't or even that he's a hypocrite.

Maybe a lot of F1 drivers base themselves in Monaco (or Switzerland as Hamilton did for a period) simply for the love of the place, or maybe Gerhard Burger gave the only honest answer when asked why he was based there and said simply, tax.

Hamilton does spend a decent chunk of cash on various scholarship programmes aimed at developing the number of black engineers in F1 (and probably other leading auto sport events) but that and other charity spending probably doesn't match his annual tax dodge, it might not even match his VAT dodging whilst flying around the world on a private plane, luckily for Hamilton climate change will not hit BAME people the hardest

Of course people are going to think differently about the world, and not everyone will consider just because he dodges social responsibility they shouldn't take at face value concerns he has about social responsibility, but I can tell you specifically does think Hamilton's tax dodging is an issue, Hamilton and his staff, because they've said they recognise it's a problem given the comments he's made and he'll need/seek to address that, he just hasn't addressed it that I'm aware of. Though I recognise for me I'm more interested in him paying his taxes than making a speech about why it's not an issue.

"That you're aware of" is rather fucking massive caveat. Most rich people don't publicise the ins and outs of their giving.

If you've heard his defence, a defence he and his staff have conceded is going to be asked about in the face of his comments, then by all means mention it. I basically only watch the F1 races, I don't follow the written press around F1, and I don't follow anyone on social media, so it's possible he's put out a defence I've not heard.

If the query here isn't about Hamilton's defence of his tax dodging whilst commenting on social equality and rather that rich people give in lieu of taxes then that's not really a take on the situation that interests me. Firstly even if he paid his tax he'd still be hugely wealthy and able to donate to causes he admires backed by considerable sums, second I don't want a society where the rich cherry pick their areas of interest, I want services provided across society backed by people paying their fair share in taxation. Or put another way, Oliver by Dickens isn't a heart warming story for me, the ending sees one random child plucked from abject poverty and lifted into a life of privilege whilst the masses are left behind

[Digby]

It's a lesser thing assuming you're not earning the millions each month Hamilton will.

That said if you're merely asking does that you're a former staffer to Boris Johnson who left the UK to live in a low tax regime run by a dictator inform how I'd take your commentary on the woes of Corbyn and his ilk in the UK then the answer to that is yes. It doesn't mean you don't have a point, just as concerns about Hamilton's conflicting stance doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

If someone is doing what they're doing to just try and get by for their family it's one thing, though even then if everyone did that there's a problem in society, doing it on the level Hamilton does it whilst still wrapping oneself in the Union Flag..., well it bothers me. I will not be the only one it bothers, though there'll be plenty who aren't bothered by it or consider it distinct from his comments on BLM

I was never a staffer!!!

And so your ability to be a proud Brit is dependent on where you pay your tax?

I mean, it’s very different between someone who lives in the UK but fiddles their taxes to someone who lives in another country. And Hamilton doesn’t live in the UK.

Actually, that is one of the sticks used to beat him with, that he lives in America and acts more American than British, while the same people complain about his tax arrangements when they’ve just complained he doesn’t even live in the Uk.

Button never got the same criticism, maybe because he was a stereotypical white playboy, not a black kid with actual interests outside of his sport

I'm not criticising Hamilton because he's black, but because he's turning around and lecturing other people about social justice whilst fecking off to avoid paying his tax that would (or could) help deliver some of that justice. I even noted it was very similar behaviour to that of Bono, and I didn't single Bono out because he's white.

Aside from the tax dodging I don't take to Hamilton a lot as a person, but he's an F1 driver and they tend to have rather large egos. I do admire him hugely as a driver, and he's the driver I'd be hoping to take the pole and the race wins because he's the leading British driver, I'm just not much of a fan away from the driving side.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Maybe a lot of F1 drivers base themselves in Monaco (or Switzerland as Hamilton did for a period) simply for the love of the place, or maybe Gerhard Burger gave the only honest answer when asked why he was based there and said simply, tax.

Hamilton does spend a decent chunk of cash on various scholarship programmes aimed at developing the number of black engineers in F1 (and probably other leading auto sport events) but that and other charity spending probably doesn't match his annual tax dodge, it might not even match his VAT dodging whilst flying around the world on a private plane, luckily for Hamilton climate change will not hit BAME people the hardest

Of course people are going to think differently about the world, and not everyone will consider just because he dodges social responsibility they shouldn't take at face value concerns he has about social responsibility, but I can tell you specifically does think Hamilton's tax dodging is an issue, Hamilton and his staff, because they've said they recognise it's a problem given the comments he's made and he'll need/seek to address that, he just hasn't addressed it that I'm aware of. Though I recognise for me I'm more interested in him paying his taxes than making a speech about why it's not an issue.

"That you're aware of" is rather fucking massive caveat. Most rich people don't publicise the ins and outs of their giving.

If you've heard his defence, a defence he and his staff have conceded is going to be asked about in the face of his comments, then by all means mention it. I basically only watch the F1 races, I don't follow the written press around F1, and I don't follow anyone on social media, so it's possible he's put out a defence I've not heard.

If the query here isn't about Hamilton's defence of his tax dodging whilst commenting on social equality and rather that rich people give in lieu of taxes then that's not really a take on the situation that interests me. Firstly even if he paid his tax he'd still be hugely wealthy and able to donate to causes he admires backed by considerable sums, second I don't want a society where the rich cherry pick their areas of interest, I want services provided across society backed by people paying their fair share in taxation. Or put another way, Oliver by Dickens isn't a heart warming story for me, the ending sees one random child plucked from abject poverty and lifted into a life of privilege whilst the masses are left behind

Call me old fashioned, and maybe it's the product of my training, but I rather go for innocent until proven guilty. He pays HIS tax and doesn't dodge it, unless you're making a tax evasion argument. That he acknowledges that the optics are bad is not the same as there being an actual issue. i have no idea whether he gives a british tax equivalent in charity. I have no idea whether he's living in Monaco simply to avoid british tax or because he doesn't want to be taxed twice - many countries insist on tax being levied where it's earned in the absence of international agreement, and Monaco is for obvious reasons the master of those agreements.

My point remains, he either has a point or he doesn't. His hypocrisy is far from proven. Even if it were it wouldn't mean that he didn't have a point.

[Digby]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

[Digby]

It doesn't matter if you break the law providing you break the law in a good way, if some think it exposes you as a lying piece of shit who'd be ignoring your oath just tell 'em it's the will of the people.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

[Digby]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

I'd be fine with a non Brit negotiating the deal, I'd like them to be competent and ethical, and I don't consider Abbott competent or ethical. Though if it cheers you up Abbott was born British

[Stom]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

I'd be fine with a non Brit negotiating the deal, I'd like them to be competent and ethical, and I don't consider Abbott competent or ethical. Though if it cheers you up Abbott was born British

I’m with Diggers here. This government doesn’t want competent or ethical, though.

[Sandydragon]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

[Digby]

Moving on from Hamilton's hypocrisy it looks like we're to be saved on the Brexit front by the Mad Monk himself, it's not obvious why Johnson likes him but if you seek some of the deeper meanings of his writings you can start to glean what Boris might be seeing in Abbott

"So apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

[Sandydragon]

That's funny. It's closer to the truth to say the Brexit vote got over the line because some Brits were terrified of Turks.

On another point entirely re Abbott: obviously the guy's a cunt, but even if he wasn't, and had relevant skills for the job etc, I'd still feel uneasy about having a non-Brit* negotiating huge long-term deals for the UK which he wouldn't in any way need to live with the consequences of.


*not wishing to sound like a xenophobe, obviously.

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

[Digby]

There may be an issue with the availability of Brits with the relevant experience. I'm being generous and that could be shyte; perhaps Cummins like Abbott's style.

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

[Sandydragon]

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

Almost. Minus the bananas. And we're not a republic.

Otherwise, all good.

[Puja]

We've certainly little experience in negotiating trade deals, and it's showing. The Aussies have lots of experienced negotiators, though why you'd pick a moron out of all their qualified individuals remains a fair question

Well we have just appointed someone utterly without relevant experience too head up the civil service. And of course we have someone unqualified to be the National Security Advisor. Anyone else spotting a theme?

Is the theme corrupt banana republics?

Nope. Banana republics actually produce and export things.

Puja

[Digby]

Even Michael Howard is drawing a line in the sand over breaking the law.

I wonder if Boris and Agent Cummings think they can avoid 40 or so dissenters over this.

[Digby]

Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

[Puja]

Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

This is the inevitable result of the government claiming that they would completely leave the single market, keep the border between Ireland and N.Ireland open, and would have no barriers between N.Ireland and mainland UK. Simple inarguable reality says you can only have 2 of 3, but the Conservatives have been loudly proclaiming that they want all 3, they can have all 3, and they are going to have all 3.

At some point, the fiction was always going to break and the government were going to have to choose which one to ditch. Earlier this year, it appeared to be barriers between N.Ireland and UK. Now we seem to be pivoting to the border with Ireland, although I suspect some backpedalling may occur given the strident response from the US. First time the white US population's delusion that they are the ancestry of their grandparents or great grandparents has come in handy for something.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Norman Lamont suggesting the government should be allowed to do something because they don't like the idea of a border down the Irish Sea, which is just weird when this is the deal they signed up to. Lamont is also seemingly suggesting the problem with their behaviour is the clarity with which they stated this would be breaking the law, so there we go, had they done the same thing and lied about it Lamont seemingly considered it could have cleared the House of Lords, something he now thinks can't happen

If Boris really wants to claim he didn't know what was in the deal he should simply resign in disgrace

This is the inevitable result of the government claiming that they would completely leave the single market, keep the border between Ireland and N.Ireland open, and would have no barriers between N.Ireland and mainland UK. Simple inarguable reality says you can only have 2 of 3, but the Conservatives have been loudly proclaiming that they want all 3, they can have all 3, and they are going to have all 3.

At some point, the fiction was always going to break and the government were going to have to choose which one to ditch. Earlier this year, it appeared to be barriers between N.Ireland and UK. Now we seem to be pivoting to the border with Ireland, although I suspect some backpedalling may occur given the strident response from the US. First time the white US population's delusion that they are the ancestry of their grandparents or great grandparents has come in handy for something.

Puja

It's intentionally done to sabotage the talks and crash out with a no-deal, and blame the EU in the process.

and anyone saying that this is totally un-British behaviour from the government is off their rocker. The phrase 'Perfidious Albion' didn't come from nowhere.

[Digby]

Britain certainly has a proud history of lying its face off. But a lot of that deception came when it was a much more significant power so it did't matter/hurt in the same way.

We have though for a long while kept to certain accepted norms when it comes to respecting international norms, our days of promising Israel to the Arabs and the Jews are long gone, even if in part because we now lack the power to deliver on such a statement

[Digby]

At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

[Stom]

At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

[Digby]

At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

Actually on Starmer this is the first time he hasn't impressed since taking over. Like Corbyn he seems to have no idea what to do or say about Brexit, simply saying Brexit is done and we should focus on covid isn't enough, and he surely has spent some time thinking about how he thinks the country can move forwards allowing Labour to progress potential voting numbers among the remain voting constituency whilst regaining some of that red wall, if he hasn't or hr hasn't got any good ideas then he's in the wrong job.

About the best Starmer can do right now is say it's not my fault, and certainly this is much more a mess created by others, but it's not exactly leadership

[Which Tyler]

The opposition's job is to hold the government to account not to come up with policy of their own - the time for that is the run-up to an election.

[Stom]

At what point is the UK government going to concede they never had any intent of honouring the withdrawal agreement they negotiated and signed, and that they signed merely to progress the talks to areas they consider more interesting with the intent they'd renege if those more interesting talks didn't deliver what they wanted.

We've not got the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, saying he hopes ministers will never need the authority granted them in the Internal Market Bill and that he himself would resign if he thought the UK ended up breaking the law in a way he found unacceptable. Which is about as reassuring as Harold Shipman saying he'll take good care of your gran.

There is a problem with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that complicates any deal any government would want to make on this issue, but it does highlight the failure at any point in time to set out what Brexit means other than Brexit.

They can't do that.

This government doesn't do politics, they do electioneering. So Brexit is all about dressing up other parties as big bads. They need to paint the EU as acting in bad faith, that the UK had no other choice if "we wanted our control back!". Meanwhile, painting Labour as a threat to the very fabric of Britishness!

But instead, Starmer is a confident and clever leader, and Labour are not playing the game Agent Eye Test is trying to play.

Hopefully, they'll crash and burn spectacularly before the year is out, so Labour can go back to the negotiating table with the EU and sort out the mess in the only way possible: closer integration with the EU to prevent the breaking of the Good Friday agreement.

Actually on Starmer this is the first time he hasn't impressed since taking over. Like Corbyn he seems to have no idea what to do or say about Brexit, simply saying Brexit is done and we should focus on covid isn't enough, and he surely has spent some time thinking about how he thinks the country can move forwards allowing Labour to progress potential voting numbers among the remain voting constituency whilst regaining some of that red wall, if he hasn't or hr hasn't got any good ideas then he's in the wrong job.

About the best Starmer can do right now is say it's not my fault, and certainly this is much more a mess created by others, but it's not exactly leadership

You’ve kinda answered it yourself: there’s nothing he can do except hold tight while the government screws up.