Time for an open thread, I think. But first,

Yes, let’s squeeze in another visit to the Guardian‘s Dining Across the Divide series, in which “strangers from across the divide” – albeit strangers with, very often, eerily similar opinions and a common choice of newspaper – “discuss the divisive issues of our time” and attempt to “bridge their political differences.” Should any significant differences actually materialise.

Yes, a series in which the entire breadth of conceivable political thought – as imagined by the Guardian‘s intellectual powerhouse Zoe Williams – is given an airing. And where left-leaning teachers, left-leaning writers and left-leaning university administrators discuss just how awful and stupid those non-leftwing people are, and whether Net Zero is super-imperative or just really, really important.

A series in which totally random Guardian readers – sorry, totally random members of the public – encounter “the opposite point of view,” while chewing on kale and butternut squash. Except that they both vote Green and are named Tamsin and Matilda.

This week, the clashing titans are BJ, a vegan and Lib Dem-voting writer, and Toby, a Labour-voting student now enthused by the Greens.

As you’d imagine, there’s much laughter and gaiety:

“I don’t see there’s any debate,” says Toby.

It’s all going terribly well, this debate thing.

Sadly, details of any clashing are for the most part left to the imagination. Filthy details are few and far between. Though BJ is slightly more concerned by exactness of terminology, and by antisemitism, of which both disapprove.

Says BJ,

I know. It’s just one blow after another.

To which, Toby replies,

At which point, I could just leave this here.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And…

Well, we’ll be here all day. And we must push on.

And so, during dessert:

Again, it’s all clash, clash, clash. Whether either participant is married or in some way entangled is, alas, not divulged.

And in a final, shocking twist:

Do take a moment to recover from all that spirited thrusting.

Previously in this bare-knuckle arena of Guardian debate:

As commenter Rafi quipped following the above,

Well, indeed. On poking through the series, of the three Conservative voters I could find, two were very soft Conservative, in the sense of actually voting for Labour, and the token Reform voter was oddly steeped in the Guardian tongue, showing great enthusiasm for “wealth taxes,” and disliking Mrs Thatcher.

This seems to be a common pattern – lefties and, well, almost lefties bonding over their dislike of Reform or Mr Trump. There’s very little substance to be had. It’s chiefly leftist boilerplate with some occasional and oddly flaccid pushback. Hardly representative of rebuttals one might offer. And not exactly capturing the tensions of our time.

Update, via the comments:

EmC quotes this,

And adds, not unfairly,

Quite.

Among the many miracles conjured into being by the Green Party in Brighton were numerous, long strikes interrupting basic services; residents having to wade through mountains of uncollected garbage for weeks on end; subsequent invasions by rats; plans to abolish car use in the city; and – despite the party’s ecological mania – the lowest recycling rates in the country.

Not to mention the endless manufactured congestion and astronomical parking fees, due to the council’s hostility to car ownership; the loss of tourism revenue as a direct result of these policies; countless failures to maintain simple infrastructure; and pavements overgrown with weeds to a degree that endangered the elderly and called to mind some dystopian science fiction.

For those unfamiliar with the farce in question, long-time Brighton resident Julie Burchill conveyed something of its scope and flavour:

And what every voter wants is a city councillor laughing at their frustration when trying to do formerly simple things. A frustration entirely the fault of said councillor’s own party and their bizarre policies. In this case, a policy based on a belief that when people go to the local dump – sorry, recycling centre – they do so by bicycle.

Readers are welcome to picture Brighton residents making three-mile journeys by pedal bike with old fridges and unwanted microwaves strapped to their backs.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Open thread. Share ye links and bicker, baby.

Lifted from the comments, a reminder, were one needed, that you don’t despise the media anywhere near enough.

In this case, it’s Flemish public television – not unlike our own BBC – and one guest’s realisation that any discussion of rising intolerance and a growing enthusiasm for violence against women must arrive at certain predetermined conclusions, regardless of the facts:

The seemingly routine attempt to deceive does rather invalidate the ostensible core function of this publicly funded organisation. It throws everything they do into question. How could one possibly trust them? It quite literally wipes out their credibility as a broadcaster. And by extension, any claim to public funding or favoured status.

In a saner world, it would be the end of them.

I say ostensible function because it’s not altogether obvious – to say the least – how one could reconcile some supposed broadcaster’s mission to convey the facts, and to bring into being an informed citizenry, with doing everything possible to prevent precisely that.

And doing so in a manner one might regard as practised.

Update, via the comments:

Should anyone assume that our own BBC is any more trustworthy in this regard, by all means think again. Do note the willingness of senior BBC employees to lie, repeatedly. Brazenly. Supposedly in the name of some fluffy and fragrant tomorrow. As if we should be grateful for their efforts to deceive us.

Update 2:

In light of the above, it may be worth revisiting this gathering of Canadian media luminaries, at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication, where much bewilderment is expressed regarding the public’s supposedly inexplicable dislike of journalists:

Readers amused by eye-widening self-flattery will find much to entertain.

Update 3:

In the comments, Martin D notes the BBC link, above, and adds,

What’s surprising, I suppose, even to the cynical, is the realisation that the omissions and bias aren’t just a result of carelessness or some subconscious preference, but are actively engaged in. Knowingly. By people – broadcasters – who are terribly progressive and therefore happy to lie.

Again, with the implication that it’s being done for our own good. As if we, the public, should be grateful for their efforts to deceive us.

I should add that the BBC has very recently admitted a correlation of migrant status and crime, albeit belatedly – very belatedly – and while trying to downplay the full extent of the phenomenon, again in ways that are deceptive.

And all it took was other people doing the job the BBC wouldn’t – while being badmouthed for it by the BBC and other mainstream media – and years of stabbings, assaults, child grooming, murders and rapes. Oh, and an attempted beheading or two.

170,000 offences in one year alone. That’s 473 arrests per day. Or if you prefer, one every three minutes.

Our betters, you know.

He’s having his creases attended to. || Incoming. || Mop-related drama. || Secret snail business. || Let’s just say choices were made. || A bathtime temptation. || Today’s word is parenting. || More joys of public transport. || Like professional wrestling, but in libraries. || I think we need clarification, ladies. || Today’s other word is logistics. || Question asked. || The totally radical tedium of “queered” Tolkien. || If We Lived On The Moon, 1930s. || On Night People, 1966. || The progressive retail experience, parts 733, 734 and 735. || Un-parking is also hard. || Horse yoga. You heard me. || How women dress, 1961. || Yet what caught my eye were the boots. || What’s In Modern Food?, 1975. || Surface tension. || And finally, scenes from the World Yogasana Sports back-bending competition.

To enable extra commenting options – including @username mentions, comment editing, upvotes, custom avatars, and live notifications – scroll down to the black ‘Meta’ box at the very bottom of the page and click register. It’s free and quite painless.

For additional rumblings, follow me on X.

Lifted from the comments, this feat of self-knowledge:

https://t.co/NK6ZXsV5cq pic.twitter.com/kRryCjRo8X

— Overeducated Gibbon (@MostlyMonkey) June 9, 2026

“How little they understand us,” says he. Sorry, he/him. Because pronouns in bio, obviously. Again, cue the meme.

But remember, dear reader, the routine and often vehemently announced antipathy of so many progressives towards people of pallor – as seen, for instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here – is merely a figment of your fevered imagination.

It was all just a misunderstanding, see? Your fault entirely.

The cattier among you will have noted the choice of profile photo.

See he/him thinking deeply.

Update, via the comments:

Following much mockery, our book-reading pronoun stipulator is now referring to his numerous quoted posts – in which he refers to massive, indiscriminate third-world immigration as “just a thing that is happening,” and in which he says white people are “the worst” and should be “cancelled” and “abolished” – as being some misunderstood subtlety of thought. While sneering at those who noticed these statements as “chuds.”

This process is of course resulting in people uncovering more of the same.

Oh, and then there’s this, approvingly reposted by our deep and subtle thinker:

Given the increasing luridness and frequency with which these horror-show scenes are happening, and given what is at stake should this trend continue – all these vibrant stabbings and rapes – asking pertinent questions with a view to making them stop doesn’t strike me as obvious proof of scumbaggery.

I mean, if you aren’t allowed to recognise the pattern and identify the problem – the dare I say it, root causes – then such horrors will continue and most likely multiply, perhaps very quickly. And it seems a bit rich to rush to one’s fainting couch because someone used the word “savage” to refer to a third-world migrant, supposedly a source of our enrichment, ululating in triumph while attempting to behead a native on the streets of Belfast.

Apparently the indigenous are allowed to be briefly upset, but only before ramping up their tolerance and inclusivity, and carrying on as before, as if nothing of significance had happened, or will happen again, and again, with ever greater boldness. While the process, to which we mustn’t pay any attention, and regarding which we mustn’t ask obvious questions, continues.

Anna, needless to say – the woman crying “scumbag” and boasting of being a Labour voter – also thinks you need to know her pronouns.

Again, patterns.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and so forth.

From the comments – which of course you’re reading – a phenomenon to ponder. A small but telling feature of our unrelentingly progressive times.

It began with this exchange from Question Time, the BBC’s flagship political debate programme, in which Green Party candidate Sarah Wakefield struggled with causality. Specifically, the apparently alien notion that a rapidly growing UK population – overwhelmingly a result of immigration – requires more housing. And thus the two topics – immigration and housing availability – being very much related.

🚨 WATCH: The Reform and Green candidate in the Makerfield clash over immigration

Sarah Wakefield: “Do you think if we locked down our borders, we’re going solve the housing crisis?”

Rob Kenyon: “The more people you have in the country, the more houses you need” #BBCQT pic.twitter.com/Fsog3KOFz8

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 4, 2026

Ms Wakefield is, it seems, somehow unaware that immigration accounts for almost all population growth over the last six years, and the vast majority of such growth over the last twenty years.

When not struggling with simple arithmetic, Ms Wakefield spends her time announcing that farming is riddled with “white supremacy” and is in need of “decolonisation.” British food production, says she, “entrenches racial oppression.”

Still, whatever her shortcomings in terms of readily available facts and observable reality, she does put her face to eye-catching use.

Which prompted the following from your host:

And,

In reply, commenter [+] shared a link to this video, which may amuse, and deployed the term Longhouse Face.

Which in turn brought us this not implausible observation:

Dicentra added,

Quite.

This facial phenomenon has subsequently, and happily, attracted wider attention. Among the commentary to be found elsewhere, this caught my eye:

Cue the meme.