Keir Starmer, the Grounded Visionary

This is

@Keir_Starmer

speaking at a Labour leadership hustings in Cardiff in 2020. It epitomises who he is. All the candidates promoted themselves and there was quite a lot of ego on stage. But it was noticeably absent with Keir. He was last and ended his pitch by turning to all the other candidates and saying that each one would make an excellent Labour leader. None of the others did it, of course. As for the content of his speech, it showed him to be super-smart, a deep thinker used to dealing with complex situations, making difficult decisions & formulating workable strategies. A decent, powerful man in the best sense of the word, not driven by ego; a rarity in politics.

There was no 'persuasion' campaign amongst MPs, no offers of positions in his shadow cabinet if they supported him and he won. And he wanted members to choose freely. Which they did. He was elected as Labour leader with a resounding majority in the first round. The second of two Labour leaders to have achieved that in Labour's history.

Then Keir Starmer won that landslide, one of three Labour leaders ever to win a stonking majority.

None of it was luck. As Prime Minister' he strengthened the economy, stabilised the UK and led the push to unify and strengthen, also supporting Ukraine against Putin's war. Policies expected to bear fruit in four years were already doing so in two, despite having inherited a massively divided society, flailing economy, a £22 billion fiscal hole, whilst also dealing with the lunacy and instability of Trump and the impact of the Ukraine and Iran wars.

Importantly, members of his cabinet were chosen for their commitment, expertise and experience. There was no underhandedness, no dirty dealing, no offering powerful positions just for loyalty to himself.

In fact, as Labour leader he made Louise Haigh Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and then Transport and as Prime Minister he appointed her as Secretary of State for Transport. This despite that she had been Lisa Nandy's campaign manager in the Labour leadership contest.

Yet she, Burnham, Lucy Powell, Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Angela Rayner and possibly even John Healey, were engineering a coup behind Keir Starmer's back for a full year before it burst into action. And now Haigh is pretty much running the show.

She, Burnham and his cohort of backstabbers - all MPs with powerful ambitions of their own who have no problem with backstabbing - have brought dishonour and shame on the Labour Party. The cynical betrayals and sheer, reckless waste of everything achieved by a formidably competent, decent, integrity-driven Prime Minister who always held himself accountable and made no excuses for himself is truly beyond belief.

Just as it's always been obvious that Nigel Farage would self destruct, which he is doing now, so is it clear that Andy Burnham's government - if you can call it that; it feels more like a club of school kids playing grown-ups - will fall apart, because it's founded on egotistic ambition, dishonesty and betrayal; MPs rewarded with cabinet posts for 'loyalty' to the dear leader, as opposed to suitability for the position. Rifts are already appearing; Labour is desperately trying to corral members and MPs into a show of unity but of course they're failing and flailing.

After Burnham made a big song and dance about not relying on discipline, but allowing everybody to have their say, Louise Haigh and Antonia Romeo have sent a letter out telling MPs that there will be consequences if they leak to the press, and if their staff do it, the MP will suffer. Which means dissent is rife enough within this allegedly wonderfully united, happy family to make Haigh and Burnham worried.

Keir Starmer walked away with his head held high, as he had every right to do. But a lot of Labour members went into shock and are still struggling to deal with it. This Labour member wants him back. Is that an impossible pipe dream? Every big idea is, until it happens.

Wes Streeting has Power and He Knows It

I always thought Wes Streeting was decent, committed to his job and had integrity. He seemed loyal to Keir Starmer, the man who elevated him from the backbenches, where he had languished for 5 years when Jeremy Corbyn was leader. When Starmer took over in 2020 he promoted Streeting into the Shadow Cabinet with a series of roles:

• Shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (April 2020);
• Shadow Minister for Schools (October 2020);
• Shadow Secretary of State for Child Poverty (May 2021);
• Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (November 2021).

Starmer also gave him high profile media slots and made him Secretary of State for Health and Social Care after the landslide, so he had real clout.

But within two years Streeting had shafted the man solely responsible for his advancement; coldly stabbing him in the back. He seems unrecognisable now. Brash, arrogant, flagrantly egotistical, he strikes me as nakedly ambitious and ravenous for power. He's also adopted a public speaking style that's reminiscent of American far right 'Christian' influencers who talk non-stop and very aggressively, not letting anyone get a word in edgeways. It's all about power and control.

In and of itself power isn't a guaranteed corrupting force. It hasn't corrupted Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown, Barack Obama, Volodymyr Zelensky, Mark Carney and most European leaders. It corrupts the corruptible. And Wes Streeting seems vulnerable in that regard. I don't have any doubt now that he has zero loyalty to anyone and will seize the earliest opportunity to muscle his way into Number 10, just as Andy Burnham did.

Streeting says in the video, "I've got a good friend in John Healey," but I doubt Healey trusts him. Or Burnham for that matter. Those two are tied at the hip but Streeting isn't part of their tight, cosy circle. Burnham only gave him a position in his Cabinet under duress. Streeting held out the threat of a contest until he got what he wanted. It's beautifully illustrated in the welcome Healey and Streeting got from Burnham as PM.

And I'm sure it wasn't by chance that Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Angela Rayner, Louise Haigh, Lucy Powell all came before Streeting. So did Healey, who was first.

There is a lot of heat on him at the moment, Twitter alive with media and individual calls for his resignation, many saying he's finished as Chancellor because his reason for resigning from Keir Starmer's government has proven to be bogus. I'm not so sure his time is over yet. He accepted the post of Chancellor after Burnham as PM said he wouldn't pledge the 3% defense spending by 2030. So who's going to hold him to account or force his resignation? Burnham? He can't. He'd go down as well.

At the moment, Labour MPs seem afraid to challenge either of them, for fear of weakening Labour. It's an awful position to be in, and I imagine there's brewing discontent, but I don't think it's anywhere close to gaining enough momentum to force Healey's resignation.

There is someone who could cause trouble for them both, though. Wes Streeting. Yes, he has a runaway mouth and an out-of-control ego, and he's so bereft of integrity that he genuinely doesn't think he did anything wrong in shafting Keir Starmer, but that's exactly my point. When he said to Camilla Tominey, prior to the above clip, that he would resign if Defense spending didn't come up to scratch, he made it sound like he was defending Healey and Burnham. But make no mistake; he was also letting them know that he'll resign and challenge the Prime Minister if they step out of line. Whatever his line is.

Labour Trades in a True Statesman for a Snake-oil Salesman

Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."

Read more: https://t.co/MIGIjW42jj pic.twitter.com/LDaw6lOb2z

— The Independent (@Independent) June 26, 2026

The remarks John Major was referring to on June 26 were in Andy Burnham's Makerfield acceptance speech. He'd spent his campaign promising voters that they were his priority. Accusations had been flying around that he was using them as a stepping stone to Number 10 - which of course he was, but had constantly denied it. If he'd admitted it, he wouldn't have won.

Then he hit upon a clever idea, having majored in English at Cambridge. Poor underprivileged lad that he was. I digress. Back to Makerfield, in his acceptance speech he told his loyal voters that they weren't a stepping stone, they were a "touchstone". Ha! All government decisions and policies would have to pass the "Makerfield test," he said, to make sure places like Makerfield were finally treated fairly by that monster Westminster that had neglected them horrifically to date.

He would put his Makerfield Test at the heart of British policies. I'm sure it made them feel very important. Which is one of his primary skills that are utterly void of real commitment. This one is also transparently absurd.

Firstly, this is blatant exploitation of voters' expectations that change can be facilitated simply and should happen overnight. All voters round the world think that's how things happen. That's why the good leaders don't make false promises. Because it's impossible. Which Burnham knows full well. It's a conveniently seductive message, though. A favourite of Trump's.

Secondly, no two communities are the same, have the same voter dynamics or are influenced by the same forces. So what makes Makerfield happy might infuriate a poor community in say Liverpool, London, Cornwall or the South East. Take your pick. Their micro economies rely on different aspects, which require different policies. And helping poorer communities takes money, which means the economy has to be built, and my God there are a ton of conflicting interests there. Nothing simple at all. Further complicated by international instability.

As John Major pointed out, what about international relations with complications galore? Putin, Xi, Trump, the EU? Without a doubt Makerfield voters are going to understand the implications and consequences for their community and the country of policies and decisions made around foreign policy. They'll also understand that, in such an interconnected and disrupted world, foreign policy dictates local economies, right down to the price of fuel and bread. Of course they'll understand. Or not.

@Keir_Starmer understands it perfectly, and in two years has successfully navigated all the challenges with astonishing skill, admired, respected and liked by all leaders involved who have the best interests of the world at heart. 

Big global issues, that have a real impact back at home - that’s what these summits are all about. pic.twitter.com/OdrmscSr8S

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 17, 2026

Andy Burnham doesn't understand it at all. He thinks "strength at home is strength abroad". It's not a competition, mate. This is the guy who once vowed, in the deep dark recesses of the past that he was an EU man. 

Andy Burnham on why he’s for rejoining the EU…

…and why we need to call out Reform on Brexit. 👏👏👏👏 pic.twitter.com/n4DFRp6Mjb

— Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) September 29, 2025

"Long term, I'm gonna be honest..." Right. Such a genuine guy. Of course he rolled that right back during his Makerfield campaigning, since he was running against Reform. So all the painstaking work Keir Starmer has been doing to take us closer and closer to the EU in a way that would build stability and acceptance couldn't be consolidated by Burnham if he was PM because Makerfield wouldn't like it.

In the UK, a snake-oil salesman has been foisted on us in place of a true statesman of the highest calibre in a high stakes palace coup.  

Andy Burnham's Ambition has given Racists & Bigots a Bigger Platform

 An angry, threatening racist confronted @AndyBurnhamGM recently on his rounds in Makerfield and the video was posted on Twitter by a bigot with 213K+ followers. It's had 655K views in 21 hours.

Something people aren't talking about is that, regardless of who wins in Makerfield, Burnham's ambition to get into Number 10 has given a huge platform to the racists and bigots. If @joshsimonsmp had stayed in Makerfield & Burnham had stayed in Greater Manchester, the bigots wouldn't have had the platform they have now in Makerfield and will have in Manchester if Burnham wins, forcing a mayoral by-election. They're stronger now, whatever the Makerfield result.

It's a no-win situation. If Burnham loses, Makerfield will go to Reform. If he wins, Greater Manchester will have to go through a mayoral by-election with massive Reform investment, & huge empowering of the racists & bigots. Reform would probably win. Any good work Burnham has done would be shredded. He'd have to kiss his legacy goodbye. And so would Manchester.

He'd be unpopular in Westminster and would have divided Labour even more, making it vulnerable to Opposition parties, especially Reform. We could soon end up with an unelectable Labour Party again, and Farage as PM.  

Internationally, Burnham would flounder. EU leaders and Zelensky would be distraught at losing such a strong ally in @Keir_Starmer, and his integrity, statesmanship and strategic skills would be missed enormously. All the good work he's done and is doing would be badly eroded. Ukraine would really suffer. Putin could gain the upper hand again.

And for what? I can't even see any upside for Andy Burnham. He should have seen this coming. Should have gone to Specsavers.

What does Stanley Chow's Image of Andy Burnham Represent Now?

Recently, in a predictably despicable stunt, Reform used illustrator Stanley Chow's 2020 portrait of @AndyBurnhamGM for an AI generated attack ad aimed at stirring up hatred of immigrants and clearly trying to garner Restore votes. Kudos to Chow, a second generation immigrant from Manchester, for standing up for his rights and threatening legal action. Reform has taken down the ad but could still face a lawsuit. That's the good news.

There's another side to the artwork and what it represents, though. Burnham seems to be misusing it too, for different reasons, and in a way that's unacknowledged. At least with Reform we all know who they are, because they don't try to hide it.

But Burnham is a different story. His words say he's one thing; a genuine, honest bloke caring deeply about the ills of society, but his actions offer a sharply contrasting picture. Chow said he created the portrait to "represent something positive about Manchester and Andy’s vision for the city". Back in 2021, everybody believed Burnham when he vowed that, “This is the job in politics I truly want. Why? Because, in a way I could never be in Westminster, this job brings out the real me.”

Asked if he'd ever run for Labour leadership again, he said, “I can’t see it happening, genuinely. I personally believe the longer you stay in Westminster the more it makes a fraud out of you.”

In 2024 when running for re-election as Mayor he said, "When it comes to the decency and warmth of the people, there is no better city region on Earth than this one that we live in. That is why being elected to represent for the third time means absolutely everything to me. I can honestly say I have never given anything less than my all to this job and I've tried to be there for all communities, and everyone who lives here – and I promise to do again."

When he was re-elected he said, "I am ready to fight harder than I have ever fought for anything before, for a Greater Manchester where people can live free from the fear of debt, hunger and eviction, and where everyone is set up to be part of the growing success story that is our city region today. Greater Manchester will continue to lead the way and we will do it together, thank you so much for your support. I look forward to getting on with the job again immediately, and I won't let you down."

Another time he said that he was “much happier” in his role as mayor compared to being in Westminster & wanted to “serve a full third term, because the stuff I want to do hasn’t been done yet. Being elected to represent for the third time means absolutely everything to me. Honestly, I’m here for a full third term." That's what Chow's image was meant to represent.

But Burnham casually abandoned his promises to the city when opportunity arose for him to use Makerfield to undermine the Labour Party and further his personal ambition to be PM, an ambition he's always disingenuously denied. And, he supports Shabana Mahmood's harsh immigration policies that have drawn a lot of angry criticism - including Burnham's, until he saw an opportunity to stab @Keir_Starmer and the Labour Party in the back but realised that to fulfill his ambition he'd have to sacrifice immigrants. Not to mention Josh Simons, who gave up his seat for Burnham, and Manchester, who would probably get a Reform mayor if Burnham won Makerfield.

Having said in 2021 that Westminster makes a fraud out of you, he's now embracing that fraud. Is this how Chow intended his artwork to be used? Representing fraud and betrayal, and all under the transparent guise of 'Andy the good bloke'?

Maybe Stanley Chow sees it differently and would be okay with it. I don't know. I haven't spoken to him. I admire his success as an illustrator. He was selling prints of the original portrait and donating the proceeds to charity. Again, kudos to him. But if I'd created that portrait, I'd be telling Andy Burnham he can't use it any more.

Andy Burnham, Working Man's Hero or Ambitious, Manipulative Egotist?

In February this year, Chris Saltmarsh - a climate activist calling for eco-socialism - wrote an interesting piece, "Your Party Can Realign the British Left" assessing Your Party, Andy Burnham, SCG, Greens and Zack Polanski. He had this to say about Burnham (Italics are mine):  

"For all the media intrigue, the demand for a Burnham ascendancy, limited to several dozen dissatisfied Labour MPs ... is an expression of elite machinations and not a reflection of popular political sentiment. Burnham is surely a very popular politician... However, the substance of his political project is an uninspiring combination of electoral reform and a “social” version of developmental capitalism... The elephant in the room is that, while the region’s buses may have improved, Burnham’s Greater Manchester experiences the same enduring social problems as the rest of Britain." 

Saltmarsh doesn't seem to whitewash for the sake of what he believes in - unlike Burnham, who whitewashes his own failures and bigs up his successes, keeping very quiet about the role played by others. Saltmarsh didn't say anything good about Polanski either, and wrote about how even Your Party, which garnered such a big membership at first, "got off to a troubled start". He did, at the time of writing, however, hold out hope for it. 

I don't agree, but I think his assessment of Burnham still holds good. Burnham can talk up a storm, but he always makes it about himself. He has a self-deprecating way of honouring himself as the conquering hero of society's ills that's positively nauseating. Worse, he flat out refuses to engage in any detail about how he would make good on all his grand promises. In conversation with Victoria Derbyshire he said of course he would follow the fiscal rules. But when she asked him what they were he said "I'm not going to go through...an exam on the fiscal rules". The absurdity of that reply beggars belief.

As does his response to her asking why he believed he would be a better prime minister than Keir Starmer. "I'm not getting into that," he said, chuckling disarmingly, "I am fully focused on this by-election." Then he went on a ramble about how dedicated he is to Makerfield and not thinking about what comes next. I guess he would have also been super-dedicated to Gorton and Denton if he'd been allowed to run.  

Just as he's been dedicated to Greater Manchester. Which he's quite happy to walk out on. He's giving up all that power and influence simply to be a Makerfield MP in a Westminster that he hates? Come on. 

The whole of the UK knows he's only doing this in the belief that he'll win and be able to muscle Starmer out of No. 10. And hasn't he offered Josh Simons a high paying job in government in exchange for his seat? Before Josh fell for the bait didn't Burnham's allies try to persuade others to do the same in exchange for seats in the House of Lords? And hasn't Burnham himself said he'll challenge Starmer? No, that's not it. He said he wouldn't. Then he would join in if Wes Streeting launched his own challenge. Sure, our Andy's not thinking about No. 10. 

Seems to me he's trying to please people in all camps in the belief that his charm will overwhelm their good sense and blot out what they see with their own eyes and ears. He seems oblivious to the obvious: that he's exposing himself as inauthentic, manipulative and insubstantial. The epithet snake-oil salesman is used a lot to describe him on social media. 

Can't say I disagree. 

The Truth, the Whole Truth etc. Or Not.

It's no surprise that the local elections have elicited widespread media coverage that's massively negative towards Keir Starmer, given that that's what's been happening since 2019 anyway. Very little mention is ever made of the support he has. Those of us who take a broader view and support him have become accustomed to headline after headline predicting his demise. But today's Guardian article by @jessicaelgot kind of takes the cake.

The headline reads: "Most Labour members think Starmer cannot revive party fortunes, poll finds." It's essentially a pitch for Andy Burnham, using his unidentified "allies" as sources. No Starmer allies are mentioned. 

It's an old story, one that the media capitalises on relentlessly, always presenting their version as truthful reporting, as Elgot does here. But we can't check the truthfulness. We don't know whether it's the same set of MPs who talk to all the media. We can't research them, find out anything about them at all. Which is convenient for a media that doesn't appear to be invested in truth or balance. 

Mostly importantly, Elgot doesn't mention that Compass, who did the poll and are cited throughout the article as the 'authoritative voice', is neither impartial nor non-partisan and nor is its analysis. It's an advocacy-driven, hard-left pressure group.  

At the end of the piece, Elgot cites some MPs who have called for Starmer to step down, but doesn’t clarify if they’re Burnham “allies”. Former transport secretary Louise Haigh is one. She 'resigned' when it was revealed that she a had a prior conviction for fraud - which she didn’t disclose to the government's propriety and ethics team when Starmer made her a Cabinet member in 2020. 

Which Elgot didn’t mention. Nor did she comment on Haigh’s hypocrisy in moralising at Keir Starmer when her conviction and non-disclosure were revealed, putting him in a difficult position, adding to the very negative narrative about him that the media had latched onto even in the run-up to the 2024 general election. Also not mentioned is that Haigh is co-chair of the Tribune Group, a caucus of Labour MPs that’s allegedly soft-left/centre-left but that advocates for socialist values. 

Elgot also cites Sarah Owens as calling for Starmer to step down. Owens has a long record in politics, like Haigh. In 2019 she won her constituency with 23,496 votes, a majority of 9,247. In 2024 she won again, but with far fewer votes – 14,667 and a majority of 7,510. Still a good win, but also a significant drop. So for her to be preaching at Keir Starmer is also questionable. 

Owens is co-Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and resigned from the Cabinet in 2023 in support of calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. We probably agree on a great deal over this issue. But so does Keir Starmer. At the UN Security Council in July 2024 the government called for an immediate ceasefire. The transcript of that speech is worth reading. 

I’d like to see the whole world stop supporting Netanyahu, who is a war criminal and belongs in jail for the rest of his life, but the point here is that getting rid of Keir Starmer doesn’t guarantee it. In fact a new Labour leader will destabilise the party. Kemi Badenoch has already said that if it happens, there must be another election. We could get a Reform government, which would back Netanyahu’s genocidal mania to the hilt and destroy UK democracy, just as Trump has tried to do in the US, and to an alarming extent, succeeded. 

Also, the rosy idea that a new Labour leader – like Burnham, for example – would escape savaging by the media is absurd. They’d get the same treatment, find their popularity plummeting, and have people plotting against them as is happening with Keir Starmer. Aided and abetted by media from all sides. Even if there wasn’t a general election straight away, Labour would be more divided and in a worse position by the time it did happen. 

None of this is mentioned by Elgot either. Am I expecting too much from her? No, I’m not. In fact, I expect more. For balance, she should have cited all the identifiable sources who say that now is not the time to replace Keir Starmer. It’s called journalism.

 @Guardian, you need to clean up your act. his happens too frequently on your watch. Elgot’s piece is sloppy and lazy at best, and at worst, it positively and transparently promotes getting rid of Keir Starmer, without a thought to the consequences. We all expect that from the Daily Mail, the Sun, and their counterparts with posh accents The Times and Telegraph, but the liberal media here is in danger of succumbing to the seduction of their template, completely losing its way in its lustful pursuit of an audience increasingly addicted to melodrama and bad news.

If at First...

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

 Samuel Beckett

As a young man, Abraham Lincoln went to war a captain and returned a private. Then he was a failure as a businessman. As a lawyer in Springfield, he was too impractical and temperamental to be a success.

He turned to politics and was defeated in his first try for the legislature, again defeated in his first attempt to be nominated for congress, defeated in his application to be commissioner of the General Land Office, defeated in the senatorial election of 1854, in his efforts for the vice-presidency in 1856, and in the senatorial election of 1858.

Winston Churchill failed sixth grade. He was subsequently defeated in every election for public office until he became Prime Minister at the age of 62. He later wrote, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up." 

Sigmund Freud was booed from the podium when he first presented his ideas to the scientific community of Europe. He returned to his office and kept on writing.

Robert Sternberg got a C in his first college introductory-psychology class. His teacher commented that "There was a famous Sternberg in psychology and it was obvious there would not be another." Three years later Sternberg graduated with honors from Stanford University with exceptional distinction in psychology.. In 2002 he became President of the American Psychological Association.

Charles Darwin gave up a medical career and was told by his father, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching." In his autobiography, Darwin wrote, "I was considered by all my masters and my father, a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect."

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being non-productive. As an inventor, he made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall."
Confucius

Stephen Colbert for President!

(Photo from Obama / Colbert Wastepaper Basketball Rematch) 

Obama and Colbert had some fun in the Obama Presidential Centre Oval Office replica before they sat down to talk about the Centre opening in June. A lot of people ask Colbert if he's going to run for president. He and Obama laughed about it, although when Colbert said, how ridiculous is it, Obama's answer was a bit cryptic - that he'd certainly be a lot better than "some folks". 

He sure would. He'd be great at messaging, at reaching voters and connecting with them, at international relationships. He'd bring back quality jazz to the White House. And he'd pick a really good team to help with the hard stuff!

Let's not forget, Zelensky was a comedian and look at him now. The most powerful leader in the West. Loved and respected by millions. Seriously, it's doubtful that Colbert would want to do it. Whatever he does, he has a bright future ahead of him. It's painful to see him go, though, and to have witnessed him being sacrificed to CBS's sycophancy and greed. All these media giants who have bowed to Trump couldn't see past their noses. He's wildly unpopular now, in the US and round the world. People loathe him, and MAGA's finished. The dirt will rub off on whoever pandered to them.

It's good to see the inimitable Obama speaking out. The Presidential Center is an out-picturing of his unflagging commitment to social justice and equity. And it's non-partisan. Obama talked about how worried he is for the Republican Party, not just Democrats (1.16 in the clip). So many people around the world worship him, for good reason, but it's never gone to his head. Which is why everybody worships him, of course. That and the fact he's a very likeable, loveable fella and a class act through and through. 

Going back to the fun conversation between him and Colbert, there was an Interesting discussion about it on CNN. John King was on the panel. I always appreciate what he has to say. He pointed out that Mamdani was able to reach voters where they were at, and Democrats can do it everywhere. Obama’s advice was to talk to voters in their language, simple English. 

By the way, who's idea was it to put tweets up on the CNN screen during this discussion and to include Scott Jennings? He's a nasty piece of work. Manipulative, aggressive towards others. He used to come on The Context with Christian Fraser a lot and he was irritating even then; he criticised Trump quite a lot but never really committed himself to anything. And never offered any interesting insights. Then I guess he realised he could make real money if he switched sides and voila. He appeared on CNN. Put a lot of people off with his crude unqualified support for the man he once said was an authoritarian.

He's still trashing Trump behind his back, though, according to Miles Taylor, who worked in the 1st Trump administration but is now a passionate critic. 

Fortunately on this show Jennings' tweets were outnumbered and outsmarted. Which would be easy for a donkey. The others had something intelligent to say but as always Jennings was just vapid and petty. Of all the Republicans that CNN could have brought into their teams he's the most ridiculous choice. He's not insightful and he irritates everybody on panels. 

Maybe that's the idea. CNN top boss ordered a Republican to be included. Lower down the chain, whoever had to make the decision ground their teeth in frustration and decided to pick somebody who would put everybody off the GOP. Not that any help is needed really. Trump's doing that all on his own. 

Notwithstanding cheating and foreign interference, I’ll never understand fully how America could have gone from the Obamas in the White House to the Trumps. Twice. Maybe it was the cheating and the foreign interference, but why did anybody fall for it? The power of grooming, I suppose. What’s comforting is that the spell is broken. Trump, along with his sycophants, will end up in history’s trash bin, a shameful stain on America. 

But Obama's legacy is already cast in stone and it can only improve time as he gains in stature with his ongoing commitment to America's democracy.  Thank God.