I’m only half-joking. There’s something incredibly worrying about smartly dressed politicians who hide behind a perception of calm authority.
Keir Starmer could be replaced by another dull politician (Image: PA)
Obviously, Drear Starmer’s efforts at placidity have now shattered after a sustained assault from his own stupidity stretching from free specs to finding himself in a box at one of the quietest football stadiums in the world. He was attempting to return books at the time.
So dead is any claim he had on calm, that there are rumblings of his replacement. And who better to boot out the borebot than Rachel Reeves?
She has some punch about her. You have to if want to bulldoze any hopes for the economy as soon as you come into power. But ultimately, like many modern-day British politicians, she is insufferably dull.
Why do I say this? Because I feel that strongly about anybody who even considers raising the duty on alcohol. To do so is either money-grubbing (boring), puritanical (very boring) or health-obsessed (insufferably boring).
Whatever the reasoning, if Rachel Reeves does force me to pay more for my Guinness, I fear I’ll be haunted by the realisation that she’s still in power when I most likely hoped a few drinks would help me forget.
Perhaps that’s her plan: to make us think of her and the Labour Party whenever we valiantly choose to support struggling pubs. I’d imagine that’d be enough to put anyone off drink.
Somebody should tell the interfering dullards that run the Labour Party that there is a hidden danger in this masterplan. Which is that we’ll just drink more in the hope that a greater volume of alcohol works its magic on memory if we’re only willing to try.
Who knows? Rachel Reeves might save pubs after all. But I’d much rather she figures out a way to do this without increasing the price of a £6.70 pint (yes you read that right, yes it was in London, no the pub isn’t very nice).
Making ordinary people pay more for small comforts is about as imaginative as politicians get nowadays. They’re a boring bunch and they shall always be so until the public and press are willing to tolerate an interesting person governing the UK again.
Instead we could face, in the near future, sedation at the hands of a woman so tedious she snapped up the opportunity to watch Adele for free. See? Even her sleaze is dull. Couldn’t she have had an affair like John Major? The only vaguely interesting thing she’s done in politics is forcing the taxpayer to pay for her heating then snatching the Winter Fuel Payment from 10million pensioners. You have to admit, the self-serving avarice of that is darkly comic.
For now at least, the future is not bright. The future is Labour.
SEE MORE :
Boris Johnson rips into Labour’s surrender of Chagos Islands as ‘total nonsense’
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has branded Labour’s surrender of the Chagos Islands as “total nonsense”.
Boris Johnson blasts Starmer for ‘completely wrong’ Chagos Islands decision (Image: Getty)
Britain is giving up sovereignty of the remote group of islands in return for securing the long-term future of a strategically important military base.
The UK Government said it has reached a political agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands, also known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, following negotiations which began in 2022.
Speaking to GB News, Mr Johnson slammed Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, claiming the Labour Government are “trying to look like the good guys”.
The islands are incredibly remote (Image: Getty)
He said: “It’s crazy. I urge viewers of GB News to get out your maps, get out your atlases, check out the Chagos Islands, see where they are, and see where Mauritius is.
“It’s nonsense. It’s total nonsense. Why are we doing this? Sheer political correctness, a desire to look like the good guys. The desire to look as they were unbundling the last relics of our empire. It’s nonsense.
“It’s a bad idea in hard geopolitical terms because the base in Diego Garcia is, I’m sure you know, for all our viewers know, is of huge strategic importance for the US, for the West. And it’s a key component of the Anglo-American alliance. It’s one of the things we bring to the table, and has been for decades that base.
“Why are we trading away our sovereignty over Chagos? Completely the wrong thing to do.”
Mauritius will assume sovereignty over the Indian Ocean archipelago while the joint US-UK military base remains on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands.
The Foreign Office said the agreement means the status of the base will be undisputed and legally secure.
But Conservative leadership candidates reacted angrily, with former foreign secretary James Cleverly labelling the Government “weak” and Robert Jenrick saying there has been a “surrender”.
Chagossians were forced to leave the central Indian Ocean territory by 1973 to make way for the military base.
The expulsions are regarded as one of the most shameful parts of Britain’s modern colonial history and Chagossians have spent decades fighting to return to the islands.
The United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of Justice, previously ruled the UK’s administration of the territory was “unlawful” and must end.
Meanwhile Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned Labour does not “seem to take the security of the West seriously” by handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
The former Cabinet minister said that Sir Keir Starmer was giving over the Indian Ocean territory to a country “with whom we have a tricky relationship”.
Sir Jacob told GB News: “We lost a legal action and therefore the government entered into talks. But interestingly, when the Conservatives were in office, as these sorts of ideas were floated, they were being heavily shot down, not least by Conservative backbenchers.
“But Labour doesn’t seem to take the security of the West seriously.”
He added: “Tom Tugendhat has pointed out that there are a lot of other islands there and China might want to have a base. It might be quite attractive.
“And Mauritius is not just some small, minor, independent country. It’s an important ally of China that gets lots of money from China. So we’re actually handing something over to people who, it would be wrong to call enemies of ours, but with whom we have a tricky relationship.”
