Hunter Biden’s gun trial nearing its end

The gun trial for Hunter Biden will likely wrap up early next week as the prosecution rested its case on Friday. The defense expects to call about two to three witnesses, including an employee of the gun store at which Hunter purchased a firearm while allegedly being an active drug abuser, Hunter’s uncle James Biden and Hunter’s daughter Naomi Biden.

Naomi took the stand Friday afternoon and testified that her father seemed “hopeful” in October 2018, the month he purchased the gun, and that she did not personally observe any drug paraphernalia or other signs of abuse in her father’s car. She had previously visited Hunter at a rehab facility in the summer of 2018 and told him she was “proud” of him. Under cross, the prosecution got Naomi to admit she had never seen her father use drugs and would not be able to tell whether or not he was actively using. 

However, Naomi’s testimony stands in stark contrast to witnesses brought forth by the prosecution, which aims to prove that Hunter is guilty on three federal charges related to firearm possession while using narcotics. A DEA agent testified to the “coded language” Hunter used in text messages to refer to drugs around the time he purchased the firearm, including “baby powder,” “party favor,” “Fenten” and “chore boy.” Hunter also texted in October 2018 that he was lying on top of a car “smoking crack.” There was also cocaine residue found in the leather pouch where Hunter stored the gun, according to a forensic chemist. 

Hunter’s ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle, testified that she would often search his car for drugs after she discovered he was addicted to crack. Hunter’s sister-in-law turned affair partner, Hallie Biden, revealed that she found drug remnants and paraphernalia in Hunter’s truck at the same time she discovered the firearm in October 2018.  

The star of the trial, at least on social media, was gentleman’s club dancer Zoe Kestan. She said she met Hunter in December 2017 when he booked her and another woman for a private dance, during which he played the band Fleet Foxes on his phone and smoked crack. Kestan said she found Hunter “charming” even though he smoked crack “every twenty minutes or so,” and stated that there was not a noticeable difference in Hunter’s behavior when he was high. The pair had numerous encounters after their initial meeting, with Kestan saying, “I felt really safe around him.”

Initial reports from the trial seem to suggest that few witnesses have faced the kind of badgering that took place at Trump’s criminal trial in New York, with the exception of a gun store employee who Hunter’s attorney Abbe Lowell tried to pin down on the timeframe between when Hunter filled out a background check form and when the gun purchase was complete. “You’re trying to set a time frame — that’s not gonna happen,” the employee said, adding that the sixteen-minute gap came from him filling out the rest of the form: “I write slow.” 

The employee also accused the defense team of being a “mess” that “can’t be on time for nothing.” 

-Amber Duke

On our radar

NAACP’S WARNING TO BIDEN The NAACP urged President Joe Biden to pause sending weapons to Israel to aid in its war in Gaza as progressive pollsters claim Biden’s position on the war is alienating black voters. 

SILICON RALLY Former president Donald Trump reportedly raised north of $12 million at a San Francisco event for techies. Tech entrepreneur David Sacks hosted the event at his $20 million home.  

OUT OF COURT The 2023 financial disclosures of eight out of nine Supreme Court justices were released this week; Clarence Thomas disclosed two 2019 trips paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow. Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown-Jackson all reported six-figure earnings from book deals, and Jackson said Beyoncé gifted her $4,000 worth of concert tickets. 

Washington Post dying in dishonesty? 

Things have gotten fiery but mostly peaceful at the Washington Post’s headquarters following the abrupt ouster of executive editor Sally Buzbee on Sunday.

“It’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it, truly,” one staffer said Thursday, noting that WaPo’s previous “rough patches” have never led to anything resembling the current chaos.

Staffers were furious that the paper’s publisher, Will Lewis, brought in a Wall Street Journal editor to oversee the newsroom until the November election. They demanded to know the reasons for Buzbee’s departure in a town hall with Lewis. Lewis told them, in short, that he couldn’t sugarcoat things anymore — the paper could no longer go on hemorrhaging money and losing subscribers. 

Reports this week put an even bigger flame under the newsroom. Weeks before Buzbee’s ouster, Lewis allegedly had pressured her to refrain from publishing a story that described his alleged involvement in the UK phone hacking scandal. The scandal had consistently been described as a Rupert Murdoch-headed “right-wing media” project. It involved lots of unethical practices, including the hacking of Prince Harry’s phone.

Lewis called the reports “inaccurate” and denied pressuring Buzbee in any way. He said the story went through the normal editorial process and he merely offered standard input. 

Whom are we to believe? Democracy dies in darkness, but dishonesty thrives in it. 

–Juan P. Villasmil

Clooney’s White House relationship Up in the Air 

As the war between Israel and Hamas continues, one new casualty may be George Clooney’s relationship with the White House. Following the unprecedented arrest warrants sought by prosecutors at the International Criminal Court for Israeli orime minister Benjamin Netanyanu, his defense minister and the terrorist leadership of Hamas, the actor called in to express his disappointment that President Joe Biden dubbed the warrants “outrageous.”

Clooney’s rationale? His wife may be harmed. Amal Clooney, while far less well-known than her silver fox of a husband, worked on the arrest warrants of Netanyahu. Were the United States to follow through on sanctions against the ICC, she may be targeted. Fortunately for her, the White House currently opposes a Republican-led bipartisan bill that would sanction the ICC.

This is all immensely awkward for Biden and Clooney, who donated over half a million dollars to Biden campaign entities in 2020 — and who remains slated to co-host a fundraiser with the president later this month. It is unclear if Amal Clooney will be joining her husband and the president who sometimes sounds willing to sanction her at this upcoming event.

–Cockburn

SNP’s musical campaign efforts fall on deaf ears

With only four weeks to go until the general election, party campaigns are rapidly ramping up. Politicians and staffers are desperately searching for more creative (and crazy) ways of getting voters’ attention — and north of the border the Nats have mobilised the musical wing of their party.

Taylor Swift is in town for the start of the UK leg of her Eras tour and the SNP’s Swift-mania is in overdrive. One press release from the Nats managed to include a whole, um, 11 references to the star’s songs, including a line from social security secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville that read:

There’s no question that the Tories are out of Style in Scotland — and as the main challengers in every Tory-held seat, only a vote for the SNP can send Sunak packing in his Getaway Car with a clear message that We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together.

Goodness. This morning First Minister John Swinney continued the cringe-fest by insisting that renaming the loch in his Scottish constituency to ‘Loch Tay Tay’ creates ‘a new bond between me and the Swifties’. The newest SNP leader went on to announce his favourite Taylor song was ‘You Need to Calm Down’, in which the American singer croons: ‘You just need to take several seats and then try to restore the peace.’ Easier said than done…

And over the last 24 hours it has transpired that Scotland’s First Minister, who was dubbed ‘sexy’ by an activist at an election campaign launch last weekend, has served as many a songwriter’s muse himself. In 1982 Nocturnal Vermin, a punk band from Edinburgh, wrote ‘John Swinney (We Salute You)’ about their classmate’s quest to save Scotland. More recently the Daily Reckless’s Tommy Mackay — himself a punk musician-turned-comedian who founded ‘The Sensational Alex Salmond Gastric Band’ — released a less flattering tune about the new First Minister’s rather dull presentation style. The sedative-referencing lyrics include: ‘Here comes Swinney, pass the mogadon.’

The SNP is of course no stranger to musical MPs, with Runrig bandmate Pete Wishart having represented Perth and North Perthshire since 2001. Might he have inspired one of the SNP’s parliamentary hopefuls? Mr S has discovered that the party’s candidate for Falkirk is trying to woo voters with a song of his own. Tony Giugliano joined forces with Scots group The Bletherin to produce a ‘We are Scotland – Special Version’ that came out last week. ‘Come and join us,’ the long-standing SNP activist warbles. ‘People say it’s time to write a new constitution. And find our way out, escaping from this broken union. We have a voice, and time is on our side.’ Crikey. It’s certainly one way to campaign…

But the Nats will need more than music to save their seats. Labour is consistently polling ahead of the SNP in Scotland, ahead by an average of six points, while pollsters predict Sir Keir’s lefty lot could wipe out most of the nationalist presence in the central belt. One pro-independence activist has even put money on the Nats returning less than 10 seats at the election. Mr S reckons the SNP needs more than Swinney’s Swiftie credentials — and Giugliano’s impassioned vocals — to help them out of this mess…

Nigel Farage’s biggest gift to the Labour party

Labour has a lot of reasons to be thankful for Nigel Farage. Reform was already creeping up on the Tories in the polls, even before the party’s honorary president announced this week that he would take up the role of leader and stand in Clacton. Now the polls are nearly neck-and-neck. The most recent YouGov survey – published on Wednesday, accounting for Farage’s announcement but not Tuesday night’s debate – showed Reform on 17 per cent, a mere two points behind the Conservatives.

As Katy Balls notes in this week’s magazine, Farage likes to insist that Reform tends to take more votes from Labour than the Tories, but the main bloc up for grabs seems to be 2019 Tory voters. ‘Those people who are saying they’re going to vote Labour won’t when they see that I’m here and what I’m standing for in this election’, Farage told Channel 4 this week. Perhaps, but Boris Johnson’s supporters in the Red Wall are just as likely to see him too. 

This is one of the many gifts Farage has handed Labour by entering the race this week. Another is on tax: by sucking all the oxygen out of the campaign, the persistent pursuit of Labour’s tax agenda has let up. The momentum building to the big reveal about the party’s tax and spend plans has largely subsided, as the focus – and entertainment – has pivoted to Farage.

Last week – before Farage’s announcements – Labour were being forced to grapple with their plans for tax. Asked repeatedly what taxes would rise under a Labour government, both Keir Starmer and his shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, came very close to ruling out any more increases within a matter of days. Reeves once again ruled out income tax rises on Sunday and by Tuesday she was promising what had already been announced – including a bigger windfall tax on oil and gas companies and VAT on private-school fees – was ‘the sum of the tax changes’ that Labour was bringing in.

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

But the focus shifted. In the ITV leaders’ debate, Starmer was only asked to rule out the taxes he has already said he will not raise over the next parliament – leaving a long list of questions about what else Labour might do. Only yesterday the Guardian revealed growing pressure from shadow ministers on Starmer and Reeves to commit to other major revenue raisers, including an increase to capital gains tax. These are questions Labour still needs to answer, but not as quickly or with as much focus on these issues, with Farage in the game.

Of course it isn’t just Reform enabling Labour to have an easier ride. But for Starmer, keeping tax out of the headlines – and avoiding particular tax commitments – is the best outcome his party can get. The irony is stark: Farage entered this race, in part, to draw attention to the near-record high tax burden that he thinks could be made even heavier by Labour. But since jumping into the campaign, Labour’s had far fewer questions to answer.

How many more houses will Labour actually build?

Is Labour really going to help get 80,000 people on the housing ladder over the next five years under its Freedom to Buy scheme, as it is claiming this morning? Given the rather light ambition of this target, I would say it probably has a chance of hitting that target, although it won’t transform the life-chances of young people.

According to the ONS, 51.4 per cent of 20 to 24-year-olds were still living with their parents, along with 26.7 per cent of 25 to 29-year-olds. That is several million people who in past generations might have been expected to be making their own way in the world – indeed, the figures above have grown substantially over the past decade: in 2011, 44.5 per cent of 20 to 24-year-olds and 20.1 per cent of 25 to 29-year-olds were living with their parents. As for those who have managed to move out of the parental home, many are renting rather than buying. In 2022, 39.1 per cent of 25 to 35-year-olds owned their home, down from 56.5 per cent two decades earlier.

To promise to create an extra 80,000 homeowners, then, would not reverse the long-term decline in home-ownership among young people. Moreover, the way Labour is promising to do it may merely make things worse in the longer run. Labour’s Freedom to Buy scheme is really just a reheated version of the current government’s Mortgage Guarantee Scheme, which itself is just a rehashed form of the mortgage guarantee element of George Osborne’s Help to Buy scheme. The purpose of each of these has been to underwrite high loan-to-value mortgages so that the banks feel more confident about advancing these loans, thus enabling first-time buyers to buy property without having to wait in order to amass a huge deposit.

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

But there is a reason why banks have become shy of offering 90 or 95 per cent mortgages – they burned their fingers on them in the past. Immediately prior to the 2008/09 financial crisis, Northern Rock was even offering a 125 per cent mortgage – and we know how that ended. The problem with 90 or 95 per cent home loans is that it doesn’t take much of a fall in house prices to leave buyers in negative equity – and banks with loans on their books which are no longer fully secured by assets. The collapse of the US housing market in 2008 was enough to destabilise much of the financial system, so much so that after the crash there was serious consideration in government circles as to whether high loan-to-value mortgages should be banned. Gordon Brown decided against it, and then George Osborne came up with an alternative idea: let’s encourage these loans by having the taxpayer take on the banks’ risk instead. As for homebuyers, they remain at risk of negative equity, whoever is bearing the risk of them defaulting on their debt.

On its own, mortgage guarantee schemes do little to solve the housing problem because they are merely helping to boost demand. If the supply of housing remains tight, they run the risk of inflating prices further, making life even more difficult for the next generation of homebuyers. Look at what has happened since Osborne introduced Help to Buy in 2013: the rate of housebuilding rose slowly after 2013 but has never matched government ambitions for long. Last year, 149,000 new homes were built in England – just half the 300,000 which Boris Johnson’s government had promised – before Rishi Sunak abandoned the target. Given that net migration has hit record highs over the past couple of years, you can see the problem.

What is Labour going to do to boost housebuilding? It is talking about building on ‘greyfield’ land, by which it seems to mean abandoned car parks in the green belt. I don’t know how many abandoned car parks there are around the M25, but I would guess not enough to house Britain’s growing constituency of frustrated would-be homebuyers. And even if there were, it would not solve the problem of rising construction costs, a lack of construction workers – many of whom Labour might well find are diverted onto its programme to insulate existing homes. Without resolving the fundamental shortage of supply, Freedom to Buy merely risks stoking house price inflation further.

Inside the Briahna Joy Gray firing at Rising

Briahna Joy Gray, the former Bernie Sanders deputy press secretary and fierce defender of Palestine, has been ejected from the Hill’s YouTube show Rising. Gray, the regular co-host with Reason’s Robby Soave, tweeted out an unsigned termination letter from parent company Nexstar, in which her first name had been misspelled twice. Sources confirm that the decision was made by the parent company and that Hill management had no say.

She was binned while Soave was on a rare vacation after a number of contentious incidents, including a fairly frosty interview with the sister of an October 7 hostage — during which Gray rolled her eyes and sighed when the sister told her to “believe women” — and a protracted social media argument with her fellow guests and the moderator of a panel she appeared on in New York last month. “This is the most Islamophobic, racist audience I’ve ever seen,” she said while exiting the stage. “It’s disgusting. I hope someone drops a bomb on this entire building.” 

“Rising gained popularity and success through its championing of free speech and open debate, something that audiences clearly crave and lack from mainstream media,” one former producer told Cockburn. “The firing of Briahna proves that management does not recognize or care about the core mission of the show and why audiences gravitate toward perspectives like hers and Robby’s.”

Gray criticized Israel for its war in Gaza on a near-daily basis — and she has characterized her ouster as following a similar pattern to that reflected at MSNBC, who axed a couple of pro-Palestine anchors at the tail-end of last year. “There was sort of a running joke behind the scenes that she would always try and tie whatever story we were trying to do to Israel/Palestine,” another former producer told Cockburn. “Whenever we would have a pro-Israel guest on, she would constantly cut them off and was always really rude.”

Two years ago, Katie Halper, another progressive Rising guest host, was let go after referring to Israel as an apartheid state in a segment that never aired. The YouTube debate show — one of the few American TV forums that doesn’t resemble an echo chamber — has been troubled of late, with a number of producers leaving to pursue roles elsewhere. One staffer remarked that they’d never worked in a place with this many constant issues. So much for free speech…

A message to you Rudy

Spotted on a flight to Detroit Wayne: Rudy Giuliani, very possibly on his way to a court date. America’s Mayor was in a wheelchair at the gate and so boarded first…

NIMBYs versus golfers in Rock Creek Park

A group of DC residents and environmental groups are trying to halt a renovation of a historic golf course in the nation’s capital. Rock Creek Park’s golf course is shoddy and run down; only fourteen of its eighteen holes are currently playable and fairways and greens throughout the course are rough and patchy. The National Links Trust, a non-profit that oversees DC’s three public golf courses, is supposed to start a major restoration project this fall. Rock Creek Golf Course will be split into two nine-hole courses — one full-length, one par three — and the NLT will add a driving range, a new clubhouse, pro shop and indoor practice area.

However, the coalition against the project claims too many trees will be cut down in the process. The National Park Service has responded to concerns by pointing out that half of the trees scheduled for removal “were either dead, rotting, compromised by invasive vines or creating conditions that hampered turf growth on the course” and that hundreds of new native trees would be planted in their place. They will also add a walking trail around the perimeter of the course for non-golfers.

“I bet all the people against this are the one’s [sic] wanting to turn Connecticut into a bike lane. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You get your bike lanes, they get their golf course. See? It’s called sharing,” one Washington Post commenter snarked.

The NLT is also set to renovate Langston Golf Course, named after John Mercer Langston, the first African American elected into public office. The course, located in the northeast part of the city, is in the National Black Golf Hall of Fame. Cockburn will update if DC residents dare to challenge upgrades to this historic course, as well.

Clooney’s White House relationship Up in the Air

As the war between Israel and Hamas continues, one new casualty may be George Clooney’s relationship with the White House. Following the unprecedented arrest warrants sought by prosecutors at the International Criminal Court for Israeli orime minister Benjamin Netanyanu, his defense minister and the terrorist leadership of Hamas, the actor called in to express his disappointment that President Joe Biden dubbed the warrants “outrageous.”

Clooney’s rationale? His wife may be harmed. Amal Clooney, while far less well-known than her silver fox of a husband, worked on the arrest warrants of Netanyahu. Were the United States to follow through on sanctions against the ICC, she may be targeted. Fortunately for her, the White House currently opposes a Republican-led bipartisan bill that would sanction the ICC.

This is all immensely awkward for Biden and Clooney, who donated over half a million dollars to Biden campaign entities in 2020 — and who remains slated to co-host a fundraiser with the president later this month. It is unclear if Amal Clooney will be joining her husband and the president who sometimes sounds willing to sanction her at this upcoming event.

We can hit up Capitol Hill, just a lil’ bit…

Legendary rapper 50 Cent took Congress by storm this week as he pushed for increased diversity in the liquor industry. Fiddy met with lawmakers from across the political spectrum, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The two now share Louisiana ties, with the rapper having recently opened up G-Unit Studios in Shreveport. He also posed for a photo with the newly-single Lauren Boebert. After it went viral, 50 Cent defended himself. “Wait, wait, guys i took pictures with everyone and all you seem to care about is Lauren what did she do in a dark theater that hasn’t been done, my God,” he said. “Hey I don’t have chlamydia by the way. LOL.”

He also caused a tizzy when he said that black men are “identifying with [Donald] Trump” over President Joe Biden. The former president has longstanding ties to the rap community — and 50 Cent’s remarks come as Biden is seeing slippage with black voters across the country. Just off Capitol Hill, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent heads spinning by posting a meme of the rapper and Speaker Johnson, where they labeled 50 cent as “500 Cent.” Their point about inflation fell on massively deaf ears, based on the meltdown the post caused. 

It wasn’t all selfies and smiles for the rapper, however. He was briefly confronted by an angry CODE PINK protester who asked him why he hasn’t said anything about the Israel-Hamas war. 50 Cent ignored the woman and walked on.

Watch: Sunak grovels over D-day ‘mistake’

Oh dear. The story of the day may well become the story of the election campaign as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak struggles to explain why he missed part of Thursday’s D-day commemorations in Normandy to film a pre-recorded ITV interview. On Friday morning, Suank apologised on Twitter for snubbing aspects of the 80th anniversary events — which were attended by a number of international leaders including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Olaf Scholz and President Biden — and at lunchtime the PM eventually faced the cameras.

A solemn Sunak told journalists:

I’ve participated in a number of events, in Portsmouth and France, to honour those who risked their lives to defend our freedom and our values 80 years ago. The itinerary for these events was set weeks ago, before the start of the general election campaign, and having participated in all the British events with British veterans, I returned home before the international leaders’ event later in the day. On reflection, that was a mistake and I apologise.

But the Prime Minister’s show of contrition hasn’t convinced everyone, with one 98-year-old D-day veteran saying that Sunak ‘let the country down’ while a Tory candidate told Sky News that the PM’s actions show ‘disdain for the armed forces’. And Mr S doesn’t envy Penny Mordant much, either. The Royal Navy reservist is fighting the Conservatives’ corner in tonight’s BBC election debate and will no doubt face some rather challenging questions on Sunak’s slip-up. ‘Judge me by my actions,’ was the PM’s message to voters today. Er, they certainly are…

Watch the clip here:

Voters won’t forget Sunak’s D-Day snub

It’s hard to think of anything Rishi Sunak could have done that would cause greater offence to the British sensibility. You do not, not if you’re the British prime minister, sack off the D-Day commemorations in Normandy to return home early under any circumstances – least of all in order to do an ITV interview on tax. It’s not just disrespectful to the fallen. His early exit suggests that this is all just a game for Sunak. It seems to send a message that he stands for precisely nothing – beyond being prime minister. 

Can you imagine Boris Johnson – whom Sunak knifed so expertly on his way to the top – doing the same thing? Of course not – it’s unthinkable. Say what you like about Boris, but he understood the fundamental importance of patriotism and that respect for elders – particularly those who made the ultimate sacrifice – is the very basis of British culture. Liz Truss would also have remained in Omaha. Keir Starmer would have (and did) stay. Nigel Farage stayed. But you don’t need expert political judgement for this. You could pick anyone at random on a British street, put them in that situation and their basic intuition would tell them to stay. Only Sunak would think that breaking a campaign truce to give an TV interview was a higher priority.

Yesterday, Lord Ashcroft published the findings of polling research he has conducted on which election issues the British public have taken most notice of. Largely, it seemed to show nothing has really cut through – certainly not prior to the late entrance into the race of one Nigel Farage. The ludicrous seeming suggestion the Tories would introduce national service should they win came top – it was noticed by 24 per cent of respondents. The pension triple lock plus proposal got 7 per cent, and the ruling out of by both parties of tax increases 4 per cent. It’s a snooze fest. 

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

We shall remember, though. One thing I would venture everyone in this country will remember – now and for the rest of his political life – will be the moment Rishi looked around at the nonagenarians assembled proudly in their military fatigues and medals in Normandy and thought: ‘sod this, I’ve got somewhere else to be.’ When Jeremy Corbyn would not turn out properly for such events, people noticed. David Cameron once effectively chided Corbyn for this lack of respect in the House of Commons, saying his mother would have told him: ‘put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem’. It is unfathomable that anyone would need to tell a British Prime Minister to stay for the Normandy commemorations.

Farage, of course, was there. Not just because he wanted to take advantage of the publicity opportunities on offer – but because he is a second world war history buff who makes regular pilgrimages to the graveyards in France. Like many of us, Farage now seems almost unable to believe what Sunak did yesterday. 

Leaving Normandy early was a howling error – worse than Gordon Brown calling a Labour supporter a bigot – and one from which Sunak won’t recover.

Rishi Sunak is bad at politics. Who knew?

Everyone is finally noticing that Rishi Sunak is rubbish at politics.

Given the scale of his faux pas in bailing out of D-Day commemorations early to get back on the campaign trail, it is hard not to. As a longstanding member of the ‘Rishi is Rubbish’ club, I find it difficult not to feel the kind of proprietorial irritation that fans of cult rock bands suffer when their heroes become mainstream.

In fairness, this theory of Sunak’s ineptitude – now so validated by evidence it could almost be referred to as ‘the science’ – was first aired not by me but in a New Statesman blog before Sunak even became PM.

Back in February 2022, a Labour source told the Staggers that Keir Starmer’s team considered Sunak was ‘crap at politics’ and thought they would have the measure of him were he to replace Boris Johnson as PM. Labour’s reasoning lay in what it saw as Sunak’s flat-footed response to the cost-of-living crisis as chancellor. ‘Bring on little Rishi’, bragged a Labour insider back then.

Perhaps some Tory MPs thought this was an elaborate double-bluff by the red team, because that is exactly what they did – though his campaign to replace Boris Johnson was so error-strewn that it took them two defenestrations of sitting PMs to get him installed in Downing Street, rather than just the one.

One of the mistakes of Sunak’s campaign in his contest against Liz Truss was to come across as petulant and arrogant in a TV debate against her, making constant interruptions – traits that were on display again against Starmer this week. He also declared himself the only candidate who could beat Labour, rather than merely the candidate best able to do that – showing needless disrespect for colleagues. And video footage emerged of him boasting about how he made sure government spending was syphoned off from poor areas to prosperous ones.

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

Once he arrived in Downing Street, barely a month went past without a fresh catalogue of Rishi blunders. For instance, in February of this year I documented a whole rash of howlers – from accepting an on-air rich boys’ frat house bet with Piers Morgan about removing illegal migrants to Rwanda, to making despatch box jibes about Keir Starmer’s approach to gender identity despite being told that the mother of a murdered trans child was in the public gallery, to being pictured hugging Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, to issuing an almost flippant response to news of the King’s cancer – ‘I have no doubt he’ll be back to full strength in no time’.

It wasn’t just in his daily execution that Sunak was deficient. His lack of strategic nous was also blatantly obvious, evidenced when he told Paul Goodman of the Conservative Home website early in 2023 that voters were not that bothered about legal immigration levels. Oh really?

And right at the start of last year, he invited the British public to judge him on five key objectives. Three were economic metrics while the other two involved bringing down waits in the NHS and ‘stopping the boats’. Only one of the economic metrics has been properly achieved, while the numbers awaiting NHS treatment are higher and irregular migration via Channel dinghies is running at an all-time record level. How bad at politics do you have to be to specify your own preferred key performance indicators in such a way as to render them unachievable?

By November last year someone had persuaded him that it would be a good idea to sack Suella Braverman as Home Secretary and bring in David Cameron as Foreign Secretary. Had the Reform party been asked to devise a perfect Tory error, it could hardly have come up with anything more perfect.

That panic-ridden move followed Sunak using his keynote party conference speech in Manchester to scrap the HS2 route to…er…Manchester and to unveil as his two central ‘legacy’ policies a shake-up of A-levels that will probably never happen and a fiddly and gradualist plan to outlaw tobacco smoking that has already been ditched.

All the first order stuff Braverman warned him about in advance – from legal migration levels running out of control, to the deficiencies of his Rwanda legislation, to the need to nip Islamist ‘hate marches’ in the bud has been borne out by experience.

Yet fashionable opinion has only just moved on from declaring her a lightweight and thinking him the smartest political brain in any room. For the few remaining steadfast Tory tribalists out there, the next four weeks will probably be best viewed from behind a sofa.

Sunak’s D-Day departure was extraordinarily disrespectful

Rishi Sunak’s decision to leave Thursday’s 80th anniversary commemoration of D-Day in Normandy was extraordinary, stupid and disrespectful. He accompanied the King to a British ceremony at Ver-sur-Mer in the morning, at which Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, was also present. But Sunak returned to the UK before the afternoon’s international event at Omaha Beach. It transpired that he spent the rest of the day recording an election campaign interview with ITV.

Downing Street sources have since told the BBC that the itinerary for 6 June was finalised several weeks ago, and that it had never been part of the plan for the prime minister to attend the Omaha Beach ceremony. Last month, the French government told the BBC that ‘Rishi Sunak’s presence is not guaranteed at the international ceremony, as the British ceremony will be held beforehand.’

Sunak’s defence, therefore, is that this was not an unplanned decision, nor was the interview with ITV a factor in the timing. Even if this turns out to be wholly truthful and accurate, it is the very definition of a technicality, and misses the point by a country mile.

Failing to attend a major commemoration of one of the most important events in recent history, during which 1,500 British service personnel were killed, is staggeringly disrespectful. Sunak was missing at a ceremony which US President Joe Biden, President Emmanuel Macron of France, the chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine and more than a dozen other heads of state and government had made time for. Let us be unmistakably clear: if that is the list of attendees, no British prime minister has a pressing need to be elsewhere.

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

The prime minister’s absence was made more glaringly obvious by the fact that the UK was represented by the foreign secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who was photographed with Biden, Macron and Scholz. When Cameron returned to government late last year, some saw it as an admission by Sunak that the PM was uninterested in international relations, and there was anxiety that he might be overshadowed and diminished by his experienced predecessor. It was quickly being said in the Foreign Office that Cameron was effectively the ‘foreign affairs PM’.

The undoubted insult of an early departure was exacerbated by the fact that Sunak returned to London to record an explicitly political campaigning interview with ITV. The full encounter will not be screened for some days but clips released by the broadcaster show that the prime minister was defending his claim in this week’s televised election debate that a Labour government would raise taxes by £2,000 per household. The opposition have called the accusation a lie and the Treasury’s most senior civil servant has disavowed it. This contrast between the highs of international statecraft and the low of bare-knuckle electoral scrapping is stark and offensive.

The row is also, quite simply, stupid. The Conservative party had used the anniversary of D-Day to unveil a new range of policies to support armed forces veterans. Sunak has so far leaned heavily on an image of a patriotic leader who can be trusted with the nation’s security, in supposed contradistinction to Starmer. This furore has, at best, cancelled any benefit to be accrued from that. It also allowed the Labour leader to shake his head sadly at the prime minister’s apparent lack of commitment, and he told reporters ‘For me, there was nowhere else I was going to be.’ A bonus was Starmer being photographed with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, reinforcing the Labour leader’s image as a substantial figure and premier in waiting.

Beyond that, this farce speaks of a deeper malaise. Nothing in politics happens in isolation: not only did the Prime Minister act in a foolish and disrespectful way, but several advisers must have signed off on his plans and if anyone raised an objection or even a suggestion that there might be reputational damage, it was not enough to force a change of plan. This is not Malcolm Tucker-level three-dimensional chess. An intern on his or her first day should have grasped intuitively that this looked dreadful. This forces us to one of two conclusions, neither of them good. Either the prime minister is being poorly advised, or he is not listening to his advisers.

Sunak has grudgingly apologised for Thursday’s absence, tweeting that ‘On reflection, that was a mistake and I apologise’. Disgracefully, however, he continued, ‘I think it’s important, though, given the enormity of the sacrifice made, that we don’t politicise this. The focus should rightly be on the veterans who gave so much.’

A thoughtless mistake became politicised the moment the prime minister sat down in front of ITV’s cameras on Thursday. It beggars belief that he is now trying to scramble towards the moral high ground. This was a massive error of judgement. Sunak, like any politician, cannot undo his actions, but he can and should be contrite.

Backlash grows over Sunak’s D-Day mistake

When Rishi Sunak’s team were mapping out this week, Wednesday and Thursday were viewed to be non-political days as the Prime Minister and most UK political leaders would be focusing on the D-Day commemorations. Yet somehow Sunak has found himself facing the biggest backlash of his campaign to date over his attendance at the anniversary. His decision to leave Normandy in the afternoon and therefore miss a ceremony on Omaha beach that world leaders – including Joe Biden – attended has been met with bafflement and anger by his own side.

As Isabel reports here, Sunak has this morning issued an apology for leaving early – ‘on reflection, it was a mistake not to stay in France longer – and I apologise’. It doesn’t help matters that the urgent business back at home appears to be a pre-record interview for ITV. This morning on the Sun’s ‘Never Mind the Ballots’ show, Johnny Mercer – the Veterans Minister – waded in, saying:

Obviously it’s a mistake. The PM on these visits receives a lot of advice on what he should and shouldn’t be doing. I’ve spoken to the Prime Minister this morning and obviously it’s disappointing, but I do find the faux outrage from people who’ve done nothing but make my life difficult trying to improve veterans affairs over the years is pretty nauseating, to be frank.’

Mercer goes on to say that ‘people are going to try and turn this into a big political moment’ but adds that ‘it should be borne in the context of what we’ve actually done for veterans’. So, how ‘big’ a political moment will be? Tory MPs this morning are in disbelief that this has happened – most have been WhatsApping expletives but one says it ‘shows the operation is not political’. The polling company Savanta’s Political Research Director Chris Hopkins says:

An embattled Conservative leader, seen as out of touch with ordinary voters, and leaking votes to Reform UK, frankly couldn’t have imagined a worse news story than leaving a D Day commemoration early after having allegedly not wanted to go at all.

It means it risks becoming a turning point in the campaign, a campaign that has already been hard going for the Tories. Tonight’s seven-way debate will be important. Reform’s Nigel Farage will be on primetime BBC debating Penny Mordaunt for the Tories and Angela Rayner for Labour. Farage is in the perfect position to go on the attack at the Conservatives, while Labour politicians have already been out doing so. Mordaunt – a former Naval Reservist – will have a job on her hands trying to stop the row from escalating further.

Listen to more analysis from Katy Balls on the Coffee House Shots podcast:

Greens investigate ‘antisemitic’ candidate posts

As the general election date creeps ever closer, the Green party has found itself in hot water. It transpires that the eco-zealots are currently investigating almost 20 candidates over ‘antisemitic’ insults and conspiracy theories — and party officials have a dossier of dirt on the parliamentary hopefuls. Oh dear…

In the latest election scandal, it turns out that the Green party is looking into candidates who have suggested the 7 October attack by Hamas was planned by Israel and compared Zionism to cancer. The revelations follow a councillor controversy, in which Leeds city council politician Mothin Ali was found to have labelled a rabbi a ‘creep’ and a ‘kind of animal’ — and posted on the day of the Hamas attack that ‘white supremacist European settler colonialism must end’. Meanwhile Adam Pugh, the candidate for London’s Deptford and Lewisham North constituency was found to have tweeted on 7 October that ‘there is no peace without freedom. Resist’ — and when other candidates were accused of antisemitism last week, Pugh wrote: ‘Either they haven’t discovered by tweets yet or I’m not being vocal enough.’ Golly.

As the deadline for general election nominations this afternoon looms closer, the eco-activists are doing their utmost to re-vet controversial candidates. Talk about leaving things to the last minute…

Hating Caitlin Clark for all the right reasons

Over the past two weeks, one of the biggest culture war conversations in America has had absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump, Joe Biden or the 2024 elections. Instead, it’s centered on, of all things, the WNBA. 

The discourse around Caitlin Clark, the Iowa phenom who won rookie of the month in May, has run the gamut of everything wrong with how we argue today — injecting racism, sexism, talk of “pretty privilege” and allegations of “assault” for hard fouls. Most non-sports commentators writing and discussing Clark’s controversial entry into the pros have never had an opinion about basketball until five minutes ago, but no matter — let a thousand takes bloom about a hotshot rookie on a bottom-feeding team.

The takes have been, in large part, absolutely terrible, and the behavior of some of her early adversaries has been petty and insulting. Considering that Clark’s entry into the league has led to a massive boost in ticket sales (her team leads the league in road attendance), merchandise (jersey sales are up 750 percent) and TV ratings (the WNBA has now had five games this season with more than a million viewers after not having a single one in sixteen years), there can be some acknowledgement that hey, she’s massively growing a league that had languished as an afterthought. Only two active players even had shoe deals before Clark’s arrival. For all this talk about Clark’s race being a problem, her effect on the WNBA’s finances is going to make a lot of money for a lot of players of all ethnicities.

Yet there’s one argument which should stick in the craw of any true sports fan, and that’s the idea espoused by some that Clark should be welcomed or treated with deference by her fellow athletes. It’s been a hallmark of women’s sports — not all, but many — that sets it apart from men’s sports, where the competitive factor is viewed as anathema. It’s supposed to be about everyone winning, everyone affirming each other, everyone getting ahead. Competitive fire is viewed as something unnerving, as if it’s all supposed to be about women empowering women instead of conquering their foes.

For the average male sports fan, this whole thing sounds absurd. You don’t want to empower each other, you want to destroy the opposition. And hating players with a passion — absolutely loathing them even as they’ve done nothing against you but beat the team you root for — is one of the many things that makes sports great.

Against the Celtics last night, Kyrie Irving arrived with his Dallas Mavericks to a cacophony of cursing and boos from the crowd at the Garden. It’s been five years since he left, and the fans still hate him with a passion you’ll only find in cities like Boston. And that’s a good thing! It’s what makes sports great. Would victory be so sweet if it didn’t include crushing your enemies? Of course not.

If Caitlin Clark has the kind of career many think she can, she can be the WNBA’s Steph Curry. That means winning, a ton of winning — but it also means being a lightning rod for hatred from competitors and fans alike. That’s part of the deal. And to the degree that phenomenon becomes part of women’s sports generally, the more people will want to tune in to see what happens.

Meloni and her lieutenants plan their takeover of Europe

Cosenza, Italy

On a dreary afternoon in May, hundreds of well-dressed Italians crowded into a regal government building in Cosenza, aptly named The Provincial Palace of the Hall of Mirrors. It was a campaign event for Fratelli D’Italia, Italy’s ruling political party. The supporters listened attentively for more than two hours. The mood was triumphant and the politicians spoke as if victory was inevitable. They spoke about a plan for when, not if, the right assumed greater power in Europe. 

“This confidence is due to the fact that we, as Italy, have acquired centrality in a very important way,” said Giovanni Donzelli, the party’s national organization manager. 

“This centrality is all thanks to the great work done by our leader Giorgia Meloni. In just a year and a half, she has finally managed to turn Italy into a leading force in not just Europe, but across the Mediterranean and even in the West,” he went on. 

There wasn’t a single disruption or poorly matching outfit. There also weren’t enough golden chairs to seat everyone in the densely packed room, forcing some to lean on the mahogany tables lined along the scarlet-colored walls. The American mind cannot comprehend this level of style on the campaign trail. And the politics aren’t like yours either, so bear with us. 

In October 2022, Meloni was elected Italy’s prime minister on a campaign of reclaiming lost sovereignty to the European Union, clamping down on illegal immigration and upholding traditional conservative values. Since then, she has surprised many left-wing alarmists who thought Fratelli D’Italia was inextricably linked to its fascist roots of the 1930s and 40s. This is the party of Mussolini after all. But the American Democrats are the party of slavery and Jim Crow, so who’s to say change isn’t possible?

Meloni has proved to be a cooperative partner with the European Union and no longer talks of leaving it. Earlier this year, Meloni was able to convince right-wing Hungarian firebrand, Viktor Orbán, to support a €50 billion aid package to Ukraine. This a shocking change in ideology for both politicians, as both have a history of support for Russia.

Meloni has yet to accomplish the broad immigration and bureaucratic reforms that she campaigned on. But what she has accomplished, which has earned her a sufficient base of popular support, is to consolidate the previously disparate right-wing forces in Italy. In the Italian parliament, Meloni leads a coalition with the center-right Forza Italia and the far-right Lega. She now wants to do the same in Europe. 

“We have a clear objective — we want to do in Brussels what we did in Rome a year and a half ago; build a center-right government in Europe and finally send the leftists, reds, greens and yellows, who have caused so much damage to our continent over the years, into opposition,” Meloni said at a rally in Rome on June 1.

This weekend, Europeans will head to the ballot box to pick their members of European Parliament, who will in turn elect a president of the powerful European Commission. That position has been held for the last five years by the leader of the center-right European People’s Party or EPP, Ursula von der Leyen, who secured majority support with the help of two political blocs to her left. 

But to secure a second five-year term, von der Leyen needs to be voted in by a majority in the parliament, meaning she may need a different set of coalition partners this time around. The EPP is expected to have a decent performance this weekend, gaining a few seats and still remaining the largest party in Parliament. But her coalition allies, specifically the center-left Renew Europe, are expected to lose more than twenty-five seats. That means von der Leyen may have to form a deal with none other than Meloni, who is leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists, or ECR, the EU’s largest far-right bloc. 

Leading up to this election, von der Leyen has tacked to the right on key issues, including a major immigration pact, in hopes of courting Meloni as a potential partner. “She is clearly pro-European, against Putin, she’s been very clear on that one, and pro-rule of law, if this holds, and then we offer to work together,” von der Leyen said at an election debate in May. 

But Meloni is being courted by another suitor — leader of the further right Identity and Democracy (ID) — Marine Le Pen, who wants the ECR and ID to unite and create a “right-wing supergroup.”

This makes Meloni the most popular girl in the parliament, and if she goes with von der Leyen’s centrists, Europe’s next queenmaker. 

The constellation of political parties, their subgroups, and the various coalition possibilities in the European Parliament may seem convoluted to Americans familiar with the two-party system. But this is still the West, and the central ideologies will be very familiar. 

Giancarlo D’Amenza, vice-president of the Italian Provincial Council, rose to address the crowd in Cosenza. “We need a new Europe, one that no longer uses a philosophy that destroys families — transgender philosophy — or married with the green philosophy that is forcing our agricultural companies to make their own investments,” he said. 

You don’t even need to speak Italian to understand the tirades against transgenderism. You just catch the words LGBT… Masculo, Femino, ridicolo, followed by giggles and thunderous applause. No other issue, not even immigration, animated the crowd as much as this.

You’ll also be familiar with another central tenet of the new right: protectionism. 

“I want to talk about a different philosophy for Europe, one that is in service to the citizens, one that Giorgia taught us. We have the necessity to protect ourselves from emerging economies. It is no longer taboo to talk about protectionism,” D’Amenza said. Protectionism has been a central aspect of the ruling ideology of Fratelli D’Italia and its partners in the ECR.

“Europe can continue to open our markets to those who do not respect our same social and environmental standards, or it can protect our businesses adequately from unfair competition to defend the civilization and welfare that has been achieved over the centuries,” Meloni said back in Rome. 

But it was immigration that dominated the conversation in Cosenza and which propelled Fratelli d’Italia to power to begin with. From the very beginning of her tenure, Meloni has been determined to reduce the number of immigrants landing on Italian shores from Africa, but has faced considerable opposition from left-wing forces in Brussels. 

However, only recently in April, the EU passed The New Pact on Migration and Asylum with a slim margin and chants from pro-migrant protesters in the halls of the European Parliament. The landmark reform will change how Europe manages the migrant crisis and will enforce greater shared responsibility among member states, a reform that Meloni has been pushing for many years. The reforms passed with majority support from the center-right and left coalition, signaling a shift in popular ideology in Brussels and Meloni’s coalition-building abilities. 

“In Europe, finally they are interested in closing the borders,” said Donzelli. 

“Have we solved everything? No, we have not, to be honest. There are so many things that are not going well, there are so many things that we still have to change,” he went on. 

There is certainly a sense in Italy that Meloni hasn’t done everything she promised on immigration. But honesty has been a good strategy, says Nicoletta Pirozzi, head of program on European Union and institutional relations manager at the Istituto Affari Internazionali. 

“She said very clearly that she didn’t manage to implement all her promises  in the field of migration, but that she will still keep trying in the next parliament,” she said.

Four bets for Royal Ascot

As a keen follower of most sports, I like it when the ‘good guys’ do well. By the ‘good guys’, I mean the elite sportsmen (and women) who are humble about their achievements and who you feel you could enjoy a couple of pints with at the bar of your local pub.

In racing, I would be pretty sure that trainer Owen Burrows falls into this good-guy category. I have never met him but contacts of mine who know him well like him a great deal. He is knowledgeable, charming, straightforward and modest when interviewed on television too.

More importantly from the point of view of a punter, Burrows is an exceptionally talented trainer. He has an incredible 20 per cent strike rate from all his runners from the past five years – that’s because 93 of his 467 runners during that time have won.

That impressive strike rate, which even includes a tiny profit for backing every one of his runners to the same stake, comes despite the fact that the Lambourn handler is not afraid to aim his best horses at the biggest prizes, including the Classics and other Group 1s.

I am pretty sure Burrows is going to land a big pot sooner rather than later this season and I hope it will be with ALYANAABI in the Group 1 St James’s Palace Stakes at Royal Ascot on 18 June.

He finished fifth on his seasonal debut in the Qipco 2000 Guineas last month and will almost certainly have to reoppose one or more of the horses that beat him at Newmarket. However, he took a keen hold that day, raced on what was probably the less favoured side of the straight mile and he will come on for the run too. As many racing experts have already noted, the 2000 Guineas form looks rock solid too.

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

All in all, 2000s Guineas winner Notable Speech is going to be hard to beat in the St James’s Palace but I am very happy to back Alyanaabi each way at 16-1 with either SkyBet or BetVictor, both paying three places. Odds of more than 3-1 for a place are generous and it is not impossible that the horse could win the race.

I have been taking a close look at most of the big Royal Ascot non-handicaps and another horse that I am sweet on is JASOUR in the Group 1 Commonwealth Cup on June 21.

Clive Cox’s three-year-old grey colt showed plenty of speed when, after a hold-up ride from Jim Crowley, he came from last to first to win the Group 3 Commonwealth Cup Trial Stakes. That race, too, showed that he can handle some cut in the ground as it was officially ‘good to soft’ at Ascot on May 1. The form of that contest has held up well too.

Jasour would not want to race in a bog – hopefully unlikely in late June – but anything from ‘good to soft’ to ‘good to firm’ will be fine. Vandeek and River Tiber head a long list of dangers, as well as Inisherin if, as expected, he is supplement for the race by Kevin Ryan and the owners.

However, back Jasour each way at 11-1 with Sky Bet in the hope he gets another fast-run race over six furlongs at Ascot and picks up his rivals one by one. He will face stiffer competition later this month than he did in early May but this horse looks a real improver for a yard that loves to have a Royal Ascot winner.

Ever since ISLE OF JURA went to Bahrain for our winter and won four of his five starts, Newmarket trainer George Scott has been hoping to aim his stable star at Royal Ascot’s Group 2 Hardwicke Sakes on 22 June. The handler cannot hide his admiration for this beautifully-bred, 17-hands-plus gelding, saying of him he’s ‘certainly the most exciting horse we’ve had for some time’.

The intention to target the Hardwicke was confirmed late last month when the four-year-old gelding cosily won the William Hill Festival Stakes at Goodwood over a mile and a quarter, thereby completing a four timer.

The Hardwicke is over a trip of two furlongs further and there are a few horses in the race who will have higher official ratings but a fast run race over a mile and a half should be just what Isle of Jura needs.

Scott is a young trainer deservedly making a name for himself and a Royal Ascot winner would be sweet compensation for the horse’s regular jockey Callum Shepherd, after being unceremoniously ‘jocked off’ Ambiente Friendly in last weekend’s Betfred Derby.

Back Isle of Jura each way with at 12-1, the price offered by most bookies, all of them offering three places. There are currently 28 runners entered in this race, which will have a maximum of 19 starters. However, this race often cuts up and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the field reduced to single figures in which case 12-1 could look a nice price on the day.

One word of warning, however: Isle of Jura needs fast ground to be at his best so he is unlikely to win, or even run, if the rain arrives in huge quantities ahead of the race.

I have saved the best until last. At this stage, I consider my top ante-post bet for Royal Ascot to be SHARTASH in the Group 1 Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Stakes on June 22. This four-year old was gelded early this year and since then he has been a revelation for his new trainer, Archie Watson, winning both his two runs.

I love the fact, too, that he goes on all ground: it was ‘soft’ when he destroyed a decent field in a conditions race at Thirsk in April and it was ‘good to firm’ when he won a listed race at Haydock in May. Not being ground dependent is perfect for an ante-post bet.

After the horse’s latest run, Watson said: ‘Gelding him has been the key, I’ve never known more of a transformation with a horse for it.’ Don’t forget, too, this is the trainer who had an incredible three winners at Royal Ascot last year, including two in the sprints.

An official rating of 111 gives Shartash a few pounds to find with some of his likely rivals such as Kinross but, make no mistake, this horse is improving leaps and bounds with every run.

Shartash was available at 14-1 until early on Wednesday morning but then Pricewise, the Racing Post’s first-rate tipster, put him up so that blew away those odds. However, Shartash is still 10-1, three places, with Paddy Power, Betfair, Coral and Ladbrokes. With so much in his favour, I am still happy to put him up as an excellent each way bet for a race that is definitely his target despite his last two wins being over seven furlongs, not the six furlongs of this Royal Ascot race.

I have a couple of other strong fancies for big races at the royal meeting but they, like Isle of Jura, need fast ground in order to excel so, just in case our summer suddenly becomes as wet as our winter, I will keep my powder dry with these until nearer the day. I will also be looking closely at the handicaps once the entries for all the races are published.

As for tomorrow’s fare, I am going to put up just one bet and that is in the Betfred John of Gaunt Stakes (Haydock, 3.35pm). POPMASTER is tough, admirable and consistent over distance of either six or seven furlongs.

The six-year-old grey gelding improved throughout last season and then ran a fair race last time out when seventh, beaten just over two lengths, behind Wizard of Eye in the Lavazza & Ascot 10 Year Anniversary Victoria Cup, despite having a slightly troubled passage.

He steps up to Group 2 tomorrow in a strong 12-runner field but I just feel 20-1 is too big now that he is rated 108 and has the benefit of Saffie Osborne in the saddle. Back him each way at 20-1 with bet365, William Hill, BetVictor or Betfred, all paying four places.

Pending:

1 point each way Popmaster at 20-1 in the John of Gaunt Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places.

1 point each way Alyanaabi at 16-1 in the St James’s Palace Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places.

1 point each way Jasour at 11-1 in the Commonwealth Cup, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places.

1 point each way Isle of Jura at 12-1 in the Hardwicke Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places.

1 point each way Shartash at 10-1 in the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places.

Last weekend: + 5.3 points.

1 point each way Secret Satire at 12-1 in the Oaks, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places. Unplaced. – 2 points.

1 point each way Breege at 15-2 in the Princess Elizabeth Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places. 1^st. + 9 points.

1 point each way Ambiente Friendly at 13-2 in the Derby, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places. 2^nd. + 0.3 points.

1 point each way Ghostwriter at 16-1 in the Prix du Jockey Club, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places. 4^th. – 2 points.

2024 flat season running total + 11.1 points.

2023-4 jumps season: + 42.01 points on all tips.

2023 flat season: – 48.22 points on all tips.

2022-3 jumps season: + 54.3 points on all tips.

My gambling record for the past eight years: I have made a profit in 15 of the past 17 seasons to recommended bets. To a 1 point level stake over this period, the overall profit of has been 517 points. All bets are either 1 point each way or 2 points win (a ‘point’ is your chosen regular stake).

The Green party is terrifying

Is the Green party the most controversial force in British politics? It’s certainly giving Reform a run for its money. In the past few months, the Greens have suspended a former London Assembly member and two-time London mayoral candidate after he lamented that colleagues had denounced the Cass Review. After the local elections, one councillor sparked outrage by shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ to celebrate his victory. At the weekend, it was reported that three candidates for the party were no longer standing amid suggestions they made racist comments. What do traditional Green voters – those primarily driven by environmental concerns – make of these developments?  

Now there’s the backlash to their scandalous maternity policy. In the wake of the Ockenden Review and the Birth Trauma Inquiry, it has emerged the Greens have been promoting ‘natural’ deliveries and promising to reduce Caesarean sections. Yet it was precisely this mindset – that intervention ought to be delayed, despite the risks to patient safety – that led to the tragic deaths of 300 babies and 12 mothers at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust. The language of ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ births was formally dropped by the Royal College of Midwives in 2017, so why is the Green party still deploying it?

Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that the Greens want childbirth to become a non-medical event: the entire movement is hostile towards human progress, modernity and industrialisation. Caroline Lucas – the former Green leader – once declared we need to go cold turkey on our ‘addiction to economic growth’. Thanks to 14 years of Conservative government, we’re on our way. 

But the madness doesn’t stop there. The Greens want free school meals for all primary and secondary pupils – a measure the IFS has said would cost an additional £2.5 billion a year. They promise to provide 35 hours of free childcare for all children over nine months, regardless of parental means. How on earth do they square freebies for higher-income parents with their insistence the rich pay their ‘fair share’? 

They want rent controls, too – a policy which has failed everywhere it has been tried, most recently in Edinburgh, where the council has declared a housing crisis. Every time, rent controls lower both supply and quality: in Sweden, the average waiting time for an apartment rose to 11 years after price controls were imposed.

The Greens want a wealth tax which representatives claim could raise £40 to £50 billion when combined with levelling capital gains with income tax and removing the cap on National Insurance. Many OECD countries used to have wealth taxes but subsequently repealed them after discovering the administrative costs far outweighed the revenue raised, including Austria (in 1994), Denmark (in 1997), the Netherlands (in 2001), Finland, Iceland, and Luxembourg (all three in 2006). France introduced a wealth tax (in the 1980s) but later withdrew it. 

The Greens also want more money for the NHS, a healthcare system they appear to view as flawless but chronically underfunded. Yet the UK spends above the OECD average on healthcare as a proportion of GDP – and has very poor patient outcomes. The Greens boast they would stop the NHS from being ‘privatised’, but even if we include GPs, pharmacists, optometrists and dentists, spending on non-NHS providers still only accounts for about a quarter of its budget – a figure which has barely changed in recent decades.

It would be easy to shrug all this off; after all the Greens still only hold around 800 of 17,000 council seats in England and Lucas is its sole MP. But, astonishingly, they are polling higher among the under-50s than both the Tories and Reform. They deserve to be looked at more closely.

Perhaps, at the macro level, there is some coherence to the Green agenda: if their goal is a retreat from prosperity, then their approach to decarbonisation – where we ban, tax, and curtail freedoms (at one point the party wanted to ration meat and dairy products), clobber enterprise, block building – is probably an efficient way to achieve it. But they’re playing at politics. When they have had responsibility – as on Brighton council – it descends into disaster. Increases to parking fees imposed by the Green party in Brighton cost the city more than £1 million over three years, as visitors were put off from going to the seaside resort. They squandered £46 million on a 531ft eyesore tower which has failed to generate the anticipated visitor revenue, while their rewilding experiment led to 2ft weeds colonising Brighton and Hove’s streets.

The Scottish Greens’ transgender policy wrecked the SNP coalition. They lecture us about ‘fairness’ when degrowth will hit the poorest hardest. They persistently block housing developments, yet advocate uncontrolled immigration. Perhaps most baffling is their opposition to both nuclear and, on some occasions, local solar farms. They don’t want clean energy, they just want less energy.

The Greens might not be the most controversial presence in British politics; but they are without doubt the most terrifying.

The Tories don’t have a plan for the criminal justice system

The Conservative party fought the 2019 general election with a manifesto commitment to establish a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The promise was welcomed by almost everyone involved in criminal justice. But despite repeated attempts over the last four years to hold the government to its word, notably by the former Prisons Inspector Lord Ramsbotham, the promise was simply broken. There has never been any government apology or explanation; just vague mutterings about the pandemic making things rather difficult. 

Meanwhile the crisis has deepened since 2019. Court waiting lists are longer, prisons are more overcrowded and more degrading than ever. Prison officers have left the prison service in their thousands. Experienced lawyers have stopped practising criminal law. Trust in the police has continued to decline, often for good reason. How many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted – perhaps because of over-stretched police or over-worked lawyers – is unknowable, not least because the of the parlous state of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice. Its dismal performance has been exposed by the Post Office scandal and the Andrew Malkinson case. On the bright side, of course, the government did lend parliamentary time to a law that now makes it easier to prosecute, and if necessary imprison, those who feed other people’s cats.

The 2024 Conservative party manifesto seems unlikely to repeat the promise of a Royal Commission (and they could hardly expect anyone to believe them if they did). The party has made no suggestion so far of any serious plans to deal with any of the critical criminal justice issues. Instead the two measures so far announced are for tinkering with homicide law. 

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

The proposals are to reclassify manslaughter by diminished responsibility as ‘second degree murder’, and to ensure that killers who murder ‘in the home’ will face a minimum custodial term of 25 years before being considered for release on licence.

The proposal to reclassify one type of manslaughter appears to be a reaction to the indefinite hospital order imposed on Valdo Calocane. The Prime Minister is said to have ‘struggled to understand how the punishment was fair given the nature and circumstances of the crime.’ Relabelling manslaughter as ‘second degree murder’ seems fairly inconsequential, but if Sunak actually struggles to understand why it is a bad idea to incarcerate exceptionally dangerous and floridly psychotic individuals like Calocane in ordinary prisons rather than in high security psychiatric hospitals he is far more stupid than anyone imagined. The more likely explanation is that he is not particularly stupid but is trying to make political capital from a horrific case. 

The second idea, that killers who ‘murder in the home’ should face longer minimum terms, does not appear to have been prompted by any particular case. Nor does it appear to have been given much thought. If a murderer has a history of domestic abuse that is rightly treated as something that aggravates the offence. But the rationale for treating him more leniently if he is considerate enough to drive his wife to an isolated woodland before strangling her has yet to be explained. Nor is it clear why a victim of abuse who kills her abuser, or a loving carer who smothers a terminally ill relative in a perceived act of mercy, should be treated with particular severity simply because the killings takes place ‘in the home.’

Given the likely outcome of the election the Prime Minister’s plans for criminal justice are almost certainly irrelevant. What matters is what a Labour government with a huge majority will do, and Labour’s strategy of saying even less about the crisis than the Conservatives means we still have little idea. Perhaps they don’t either. There are very few grounds for optimism. The last time Labour were in power they devised the egregiously unjust sentence of ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection,’ under which thousands of prisoners were given what were in all but name life sentences, often for relatively trivial offences. Even the minister responsible for its introduction now regards the policy as a disaster. 

The Baldwins reality show announced ahead of manslaughter trial

Alec Baldwin is a family man through and through. The poster for Baldwin’s eponymous new TLC show — featuring the actor surrounded by his wife and gaggle of kids — is proof. The heartwarming scene almost made Cockburn forget that Baldwin accidentally shot and killed a crew member for the film Rust back in 2021.  

On Tuesday, Baldwin and his faux-Spanish wife Hilaria announced their upcoming show via Instagram, inviting viewers into their home to see the “ups and downs, the good, the bad, the wild and the crazy.” The fifty-second promo features the couple’s seven kids, all under ten, screaming in their sterile, white New York City apartment — music to Cockburn’s ears. 

The announcement comes just a month before Baldwin’s manslaughter trial is set to begin. In January, Baldwin was indicted on the charge after fatally shooting Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on set. If convicted, Baldwin faces up to eighteen months behind bars. Cockburn must admit watching Baldwin’s pint-sized gang romp around prison sounds better than what TLC has pitched. It would also allow Baldwin to meet up with Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the convicted armorer from Rust who brought live ammo on set. Reed, who has expressed anger at being blamed for Hutchins’s death, said that she would like to see Baldwin in jail. Cockburn would like to see a prison yard fight. 

Gloria Allred, the lawyer for Hutchins’s family, said she doesn’t trust the timing of the announcement. “This appears, to me, to be a calculated and cynical public relations move to try to influence the jury pool in New Mexico to think of him as a sympathetic family man rather than as the killer of Halyna Hutchins,” Allred said. Since Baldwin and Hilaria have repeatedly complained about paparazzi ambushing their family, Cockburn finds it odd they’ve willingly sacrificed their children to TLC execs. But if it keeps Baldwin out of prison, anything will be worth it. 

Baldwin’s trigger-happy fingers are ancillary to the show’s real scandal though — Hilaria’s American accent. Suspiciously absent from the announcement was her exotic timbre and tone. Born Hillary Hayward-Thomas in Boston, Hilaria decided to tweak her very aristocratic-sounding name and speak in a Spanish accent at some point in her twenties. Although neither of her parents are Hispanic, Hilaria said she traveled to Spain every year as a child and grew up in a bilingual household. She briefly tried to convince everyone that she was from Mallorca, forgot the English word for cucumber on live TV, and has named her kids everything from Romeo Alejandro to Eduardo Pao Lucas.

Hilaria has held onto the grift for so long, Cockburn missed hearing her breathy accent in the promo. At least, the show won’t require subtitles for non-Spanish speakers. 

Sunak apologises for leaving D-Day commemorations

Rishi Sunak has just apologised for missing the international D-Day event in Normandy to fly back early to the UK for an interview with ITV. There has been a mixture of outrage and total bewilderment about why the Prime Minister chose to leave after the British event, putting foreign secretary David Cameron in his place, and do an interview that isn’t even being broadcast until next week. He posted on Twitter:

The 80th anniversary of D-Day has been a profound moment to honour the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our values, our freedom and our democracy.

This anniversary should be about those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. The last thing I want is for the commemorations to be overshadowed by politics.

I care deeply about veterans and have been honoured to represent the UK at a number of events in Portsmouth and France over the past two days and to meet those who fought so bravely.

After the conclusion of the British event in Normandy, I returned back to the UK. On reflection, it was a mistake not to stay in France longer – and I apologise.

Tory MPs have been unable to defend the decision overnight and the rage that they were expressing to one another showed that they would not be able to say anything constructive in interviews or on the doorstep today. One told me last night that ‘this is Corbyn levels of disrespect’ – a reference to Jeremy Corbyn refusing to sing the national anthem early on in his leadership. Others pointed out that Sunak had attended a number of other events, including the British commemoration, and had perhaps thought he’d done his bit. But even that shows a lack of political intelligence about the magnitude of the event, given the age of the remaining veterans attending.

Another MP says:

I think it’s partly that if you’re so caught up in the detail you can talk yourself into anything. A total inability to pan back and see the bigger picture. Plus he’s advised by idiots half of whom have now disappeared to fight seats and can in due course trash what’s left of the Tory party from parliament rather than No. 10. And people say he won’t have a legacy…

Sunak wants to draw a line under the incident so that the day isn’t filled with debate about why he left the commemorations early. The apology has taken some of the air out of the row, but the real damage has already been done: the news carried pictures of a former prime minister alongside world leaders, and the man most people assume will be the next prime minister joining them. Sunak was nowhere to be seen. 

Listen to more analysis from Isabel Hardman and Katy Balls on the Coffee House Shots podcast:

Tune into Trump’s VP Apprentice show

Welcome to Thunderdome. Well, we finally have it! A list of contestants for Donald Trump’s long-anticipated veepstakes, designed to play out live and on camera in the coming month before the Republican convention — you just know he’s going to make us all wait for the reveal. There are a few surprises in omissions and additions, but not many. Now, this being Trump, he could always swerve at the last minute and have a surprise entry… so Tulsi Gabbard fans, all hope is not lost. But here are the candidates we know for now:

• Governor Doug Burgum (ND)
• Ben Carson, former HUD secretary
• Senator Tom Cotton (Ark.)
• Representative Byron Donalds (Fla.)
• Senator Marco Rubio (Fla.)
• Senator Tim Scott (S.C.)
• Representative Elise Stefanik (N.Y.)
• Senator J.D. Vance (Ohio)

Axios reports that the level of requests was uneven, potentially a sign that there are already more heavily favored names on the list. But already we can start with the handicapping and debating pros and cons.

My general thoughts are based on the assumption that Trump wants to do three things with his choice: have an ardent defender, solidify the normie suburban voter’s support with a reassuring choice (getting Nikki Haley’s faction without Nikki Haley) and continue making inroads with black and Hispanic voters — all of which seem logical to me. There’s also another factor, which is whether he wants to pick an heir apparent, or purposefully avoid such a choice — but that’s harder to know.

While Donalds and Stefanik are both solid warriors for Trump on camera and in the House, neither of them seem quite ready to jump into the job. He may get as much as he needs from them without them on the ticket.

Vance is extremely ambitious, but does he bring voters that Trump wouldn’t already have anyway? He also runs the risk of seeming like he’s going to immediately start running for president… but Trump does like his story, and Trumpworld loves him as the combo of “Hillbilly” star and Ivy League cred. Cotton suffers from some of the same ambition factors, though both men kind of speak to the “world is on fire” moment with recent military experience. I’d give the edge to Vance, who doesn’t look long for the Senate — Cotton looks more like a Cabinet member. Maybe next time he can make the decision to send in the troops himself?

Carson and Scott scratch the “male black vote” itch that Trump has on paper — but do they move a significant number of black voters, or are they just effectively racial lightning rods? Both may actually work better as bait to expose media racists — imagine The View talking about them every day. Of course, Scott is younger and certainly better on the debate stage. He seems more ready for the job.

Burgum seems like the safest choice all around. He offends no one, would be a loyal soldier, and his business acumen is something Trump appreciates. He’s a new face on the national stage without the risk factor most new faces bring. But is he too boring? And would he be able to withstand the negative media onslaught? Is it a risk to have just two white businessmen running together? These are all open questions.

Out of this list, Rubio may be the most obvious pick to bring in the Haley contingent without Haley. He’s adapted to the Trump dynamic very well when it comes to moving in a serious populist direction without just aping the lines. He has matured as a voice and is familiar to most voters. And as a communicator, he’s the sharpest on this list — and provides a serious contrast with Kamala Harris. In a way, naming him as vice president completes Trump’s arc of taking over the Republican Party in the friendliest way possible. But does DJT care about that, even a little bit?

As of today, in candidate casino, I’d bet evenly on Rubio or Vance and scatter a bit on Scott and Burgum. Feel free to let me know your thoughts!

Don’t you dare call Joe Biden old

How dare the Wall Street Journal report accurately what everyone in Washington has known for years? The White House is super mad about it, and they’re getting an assist from their favorites in media and in the Senate — Joe Scarborough and Mitt Romney:

That the Journal was the outlet to print the item was a particular sore spot for the White House. According to three people familiar with the communications shop’s perceptions of the press corps, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking, the West Wing has long viewed the paper’s White House reporters as both predictable and sober-minded, chief among them Ken Thomas. It also sees the Journal’s audience as one it needs to cultivate — the center-right electorate that Biden must gain ground with if he is going to make up for his current deficit with younger, liberal voters.

The response didn’t just indicate that Biden’s age remains a sensitive point for the White House and allied Democrats, but that the president’s team is still uncertain about how best to parlay scrutiny of it. Having downplayed these storylines early in the administration, aides have tried to use humor or even embrace the idea that Biden is old (and wise) as a response. On Wednesday, they tried fury.

But inside the West Wing, Biden aides said they felt vindicated that cable news hosts slammed the piece. That included a Biden favorite, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who called the story a “Trump hit piece” during a Morning Joe segment. (Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates posted about the segment at least nine times on Wednesday.)

Additional vindication would come from Capitol Hill, where several Republican senators downplayed the seriousness of the portrayal of Biden that their House GOP counterparts had presented.

Senator Mitt Romney said in his meetings and phone calls with Biden he’s found the president “to be normally capable, intellectually. And with it. At the same time, when we get older like me, we may not be as sharp as we once were. But we, hopefully, make up for that with wisdom and better judgment.” Romney said he does not harbor concerns about Biden’s decision-making or fitness for the job.

“Fury”? Come now Politico. Now who’s being naïve.

Lawfare’s utter failure

So let’s take stock of where all the lawfare attacks from the Democrats that were supposed to doom Donald Trump with Independent voters have ended up. Jack Smith’s cases? Stalled in DC, and sidelined in Florida over special counsel legitimacy disputes. Letitia James? Frustrated in her attempts to seize Trump’s property via a massive bond demand, appeal kicked forward. Jena Griswold? Utterly wrecked at SCOTUS. And now Fani Willis’s Georgia case, arguably the most ambitious of them all, looks to be delayed perhaps to the point of death.

A Georgia appeals court has halted all pretrial proceedings in Donald Trump’s Atlanta-based criminal case while a three-judge panel considers whether to disqualify the lead prosecutor, Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis.

The order issued Wednesday effectively confirms that the sprawling racketeering case against Trump and more than a dozen codefendants — charging them with an attempt to corrupt Georgia’s 2020 election results — will not come before a jury in 2024.

The case had already seemed like a longshot to go to trial before this year’s presidential election, with a long list of complicated pretrial matters still pending before Judge Scott McAfee. The Georgia appeals court order blocks McAfee from advancing those issues while Trump and other defendants mount an appeal over allegations of ethical lapses by Willis. That appeal is scheduled for oral arguments on October 4, with a decision from the appellate court likely to take several months after that.

For Trump, it’s another vindication of his well-worn strategy to delay his criminal cases until after the election. If he prevails in November, he’s unlikely to face the Georgia case until 2029 — if at all — because many legal experts believe a state cannot constitutionally prosecute a sitting president. As president, Trump would also have the power to unravel the other two languishing criminal cases against him, both brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

The idea that after all these missiles were launched at Trump via the Democratic lawfare war machine, the only ones that got through were from E. Jean Carroll and Alvin Bragg — both radiating in the minds of voters as tawdry sexual misdeeds instead of meaningful violations of the law — it’d be a pretty disappointing outcome for MSNBC viewers. Lest we forget, these tactics were supposed to end Trump as a functional candidate by the summer. Instead, all this lawfare accomplished was promoting him to the nomination without even having to debate, solidifying his hold on GOP voters and politicians, and lofting him to fundraising outpacing Joe Biden. Helluva strategy!

Hunter Biden, King of Wilmington

It’s hard to read the details coming out of Hunter Biden’s trial without wanting to vomit in your mouth if you have any kind of class. Miranda Devine did a good job rounding up the courtroom experience here. But what’s more interesting is that this case even went to trial. It is a sign once again of Hunter’s enduring trait: hubris, an emphatic belief that he is special, the rules don’t apply to him, and he can always beat the rap.

You can literally show the texts of him trying to DoorDash crack from Mookie less than twenty-four hours after buying a gun and legally claiming he wasn’t doing drugs, it won’t matter — he’s a Biden being tried in Delaware! In court, he can smile and wave at the “Weedslut” stripper he had a lengthy affair with (this was both after and before he was having sex with his dead brother’s widow) while blowing the alimony money he owed his ex-wife and three daughters at Chateau Marmont and learning to cook his own crack on the stovetop. It’s the confidence of a man who gets multiple waivers from on high to join the Naval Reserve then gets booted in less than a year because he’s using cocaine. It’s the confidence of a man who knows his family is royalty in Delaware.

That’s why the case went to trial — even if it’s causing pain for all the people he wronged, even though it’s a distraction for the White House, even though, as Jonathan Turley writes, the Defense’s case was entirely demolished within the first two days of the trial:

Every claim of the defense seemed to collapse in the first two days of the trial.

The defense argued that Hunter did not check the box on the gun form, so the prosecutors called the employee who watched him fill out the form.

It claimed he was not using drugs at the time, so the prosecutors read texts from the next day in which Hunter sought to buy crack and called a series of witnesses on his continual use of crack during the period.

The defense previously claimed the laptop showed evidence of tampering, so the prosecutor called a FBI agent establishing that there is no evidence of tampering and that the laptop is authentic.

The defense claimed that Hunter just wandered into the store and was pressured to buy a gun, so prosecutors called an employee who testified that Hunter came in specifically wanting to buy a gun.

As previously discussed, the lack of a defense is becoming glaringly obvious as is the nullification strategy…

Wilmington for Biden is the opposite of Manhattan for Trump. This is a town that overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2016 and 2020. It is a great jury pool for the defense.

Viewed through a nullification defense, it does not matter how absurd the actual defense is in the case.

It is merely a pretense. Whether it is sympathy for a drug addict or a Biden, the defense clearly hopes that the jury will look beyond the evidence and the crime in this case.

And if they don’t? Well, dad will just pardon him. There’s always a way to skate by.

One more thing

On D-Day, I highly encourage you to read this reprint of a 1964 article from Spectator editor Iain McLeod, writing on his experience on that Day of Days:

The waves were still choppy and the landing was going to be a hazardous and in part a haphazard affair. But the day was becoming warm. The coast of Normandy began to take shape through the haze. And then as full light began to come one saw the ships and the planes. It was a sight so paralyzing that tears came to my eyes. It was as if every ship that had ever been launched was there and even as if the sea had yielded up her wrecks. It was as if every plane that had ever been built was there, and, so it seemed in fantasy, as if the dead crews were there too. There had never been since time began such a rendezvous for fighting men: there never will be again. And I remember reciting, not in scorn, but out of sheer delight at being part of that great company in such a place, “And gentlemen in England now abed …”

Why is Douglas Ross standing for parliament again?

Not content with being a referee and leader of the Tories in Scotland, Douglas Ross seems bent on making himself even more unpopular with the punters. In doing so, he has alighted upon David Duguid, the Conservative MP for Banff and Buchan since 2017, who wrestled that once true-blue redoubt back from the SNP after 30 years of Nationalist incumbency. 

Duguid, who served as a minister under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, was preparing to stand again, under his seat’s new name of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, when he was struck by illness and spent four weeks in intensive care. He says he’s on the road to recovery and though he wouldn’t be able to go door-to-door before polling day, he expected to be the Conservative candidate, not least because local Conservative members had endorsed him as such. 

On Wednesday evening, however, the men in grey kilts came for him. Right on the cusp of nominations closing, meaning he had no chance to mount a fightback, he was informed by Scottish Tory higher-ups that he was being dropped as a candidate. As luck would have it, they had come up with a replacement. One Douglas Ross, apparently a real up-and-comer in Scottish Tory politics. 

In addition to being a Conservative MSP (and a football linesman), Ross is the outgoing MP for Moray. He announced three years ago that he wouldn’t be standing in the 2024 election and, until this morning, had given no indication that he had changed his mind. Indeed, he was said to be leaving the Commons to focus on the next Holyrood election and his job as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The man has so many jobs it’s a wonder he can focus on any of them. 

Most popular

Christopher Caldwell

The end of Trumpism

John R. MacArthur

The outrageous cynicism of the Democrats on Iran

Sarah Beth Spraggins

When women exit stage right

Perhaps Duguid had to be removed as a candidate for his own good and that of his party. Local Tory voters will be able to understand that. What they will struggle with is why he had to be defenestrated so coldly, at the very last minute, with no softening of the ground to prepare for it. They will struggle with the notion that, at a moment of great personal difficulty for one of his MPs, the Scottish Conservative leader not only reversed his position on standing again but somehow obtained selection for that MP’s seat. A seat that borders Ross’s own, which boundary changes have turned into a notional SNP seat. 

Like I say, maybe this messiness was unavoidable but it looks bad and it smells bad. Elsewhere on Coffee House, Iain Macwhirter notes that Holyrood polling points to a return to third place for the Scottish Tories after 2026 and posits that Ross is hedging his bets. He might feel he has more to contribute as part of a rump Commons Tory party, where he could feasibly help shape what if any future the Conservatives have, than he could as head of the third party in a regional parliament where opposition parties have even less influence than they have at Westminster. 

All this might be true, but I can’t help but think this sort of skulduggery won’t go down well in Banffshire, which is far from Edinburgh and London not just in miles but in values. People up that way prize honesty, plain-dealing, and loyalty. Even those who feel Duguid should have stood aside of his own volition will recoil from the sight of him getting a dagger in the back from his own colleagues. Whether that will cost Ross enough votes for him to lose the seat is another matter, but with a notional majority of just over 2,000, it’s one hell of a risk to take.