Jim's analysis of politics in this country is thorough and pretty sound. I can find very little to disagree with. I don't go along with his approach to the rest of you and it would be good if he took a small step back.

However, you are now rounding on him like a pack of bullies, in a way you don't round on me when I make exactly the same points about Starmer that he does, and, because you know how he'll respond and are getting precisely what you expect, you are making the situation a damn sight worse. I'm amazed at your capacity for brutal insult, John, even though I know how to rile you about those noisy and useless shitting machines known as "dogs." You have no right to tell him that his opinion about this country's politics don't count just because he doesn't live here any more. We live in a big global village these days and what we do here impacts people all over the world. I've expressed opinions here about Dubya, Xi, Netanyahu, Trump, various popes and many another, I've been vehemently disagreed with, insulted and even threatened with banishment but I've never been told that I'm disqualified from commenting because "I don't live there." That's a resort way too far. If Jim needs to take a small step back, some of us need to take a bloody big step back. You didn't even treat Iains, a far-right plant, as badly as this. Nothing like. Jim is on our side, the main difference being that he isn't up for compromise, and he puts up a valiant argument as to why we shouldn't, most of the time. He's setting his principle against your expediency, you don't like it, but that's how he is. And there is validity in that.