All a bit grim but where does air power come into this? Would NATO allow Russian planes to control Ukraine airspace?
Yes, unless they want all out war with Russia.
NATO will just focus on ensuring Putin goes no further than Ukraine into a NATO member state like Estonia or Poland
Just give me a wave with your appeasement treaty from the steps of your plane at Heston Aerodrome.
Chamberlain's appeasement strategy gave the UK and France time to rearm and prepare in case Hitler did go too far and invade Poland, which he eventually did. We were not ready for war when he took the Sudetenland and much of Czechosolovakia.
See also the new Jeremy Irons' Netflix film on Chamberlain, he was more strategic than he has been portrayed
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You are quite bonkers! When the Russian Army marches through Europe do you think it stops at Calais and Putin thinks "job done"!
France has nuclear weapons, I think we and the French at least are pretty safe from Putin.
If it gets to the point of mutual nuclear annihilation we are all f*****!
Re cost of living...MPs getting a bit pay rise will go down like a bucket of cold sick.
Tricky for government, as MPs are people too and are affected by cost of living as well and government obviously already in bad books with own backbenchers.
But optics will be terrible. Public will think f##king rule breaking taking the piss PM and then all the f##kers get a pay rise
All a bit grim but where does air power come into this? Would NATO allow Russian planes to control Ukraine airspace?
Yes, unless they want all out war with Russia.
NATO will just focus on ensuring Putin goes no further than Ukraine into a NATO member state like Estonia or Poland
Just give me a wave with your appeasement treaty from the steps of your plane at Heston Aerodrome.
Chamberlain's appeasement strategy gave the UK and France time to rearm and prepare in case Hitler did go too far and invade Poland, which he eventually did. We were not ready for war when he took the Sudetenland and much of Czechosolovakia.
See also the new Jeremy Irons' Netflix film on Chamberlain, he was more strategic than he has been portrayed
Have you seen it on Netflix? I looked on Sunday evening and only the trailer was on there.
All a bit grim but where does air power come into this? Would NATO allow Russian planes to control Ukraine airspace?
Yes, unless they want all out war with Russia.
NATO will just focus on ensuring Putin goes no further than Ukraine into a NATO member state like Estonia or Poland
Just give me a wave with your appeasement treaty from the steps of your plane at Heston Aerodrome.
Chamberlain's appeasement strategy gave the UK and France time to rearm and prepare in case Hitler did go too far and invade Poland, which he eventually did. We were not ready for war when he took the Sudetenland and much of Czechosolovakia.
See also the new Jeremy Irons' Netflix film on Chamberlain, he was more strategic than he has been portrayed
Handy rewriting of history there.
Chamberlains policy was absolutely to prevent war - hence appeasement. It wasn’t a master plan to “somehow buy time”
It's an interesting point to debate. Which is true in Chamberlain's case seems to depend on whether you are for or against him.
It's perfectly possible for both to be true: "I'd love to avoid war, but if we have to go to war, best if it is delayed so we can build up our forces. If we go to war today we're ******."
There was also an element, IIRC, of whether the whole country wold be behind the declaration of war - hence the pre-announcement in clear terms of the Polish Guarantee. Not because of especial love for Poland, but to make clear to everyone where the line was.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
No it will not.
There will be no tanks or NATO troops sent to Ukraine. It is not a NATO member state.
Russia also has a veto power on the UN Security Council so there are limits on what the UN can do too unless overwhelming agreement in the UN general assembly for sanctions on Russia.
You haven't a clue about geopolitics
Indeed we have military advisers there already
Maybe this will help your ignorance
BBC News - Russia-Ukraine crisis: UK sending weapons to defend Ukraine, says defence secretary
A few military trainers, if Russia does invade we will not be sending large numbers of regiments to Ukraine.
We might send them to Estonia, Latvia and Poland to contain Putin, we will not send them to start an all out war with Russia
The problem is that nobody, not even yourself, is able to definitely say what will happen if Russia invades Ukraine but neither NATO or the EU will stand aside and let Ukraine fall
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
This is a very serious issue as the UK actively supports Ukraine with the gratitude of the Baltic states while Germany prevaricates and the EU face an existential crisis between themselves in how to act
This is not an anti EU comment but this could cause very serious damage to EU unity which we all need and want on something as serious as a possible war in Europe
I was keen not to leave the EU, but I am not keen enough to desire our re-unification with the EU states under the flag of the Russian Federation.
We are already allied with most of the EU in military terms via NATO.
It is NATO that keeps peace in Europe, not the EU, especially as Turkey, the USA and Canada are also part of the NATO military alliance
All a bit grim but where does air power come into this? Would NATO allow Russian planes to control Ukraine airspace?
Yes, unless they want all out war with Russia.
NATO will just focus on ensuring Putin goes no further than Ukraine into a NATO member state like Estonia or Poland
Just give me a wave with your appeasement treaty from the steps of your plane at Heston Aerodrome.
Chamberlain's appeasement strategy gave the UK and France time to rearm and prepare in case Hitler did go too far and invade Poland, which he eventually did. We were not ready for war when he took the Sudetenland and much of Czechosolovakia.
See also the new Jeremy Irons' Netflix film on Chamberlain, he was more strategic than he has been portrayed
Handy rewriting of history there.
Chamberlains policy was absolutely to prevent war - hence appeasement. It wasn’t a master plan to “somehow buy time”
I believe the modern view is that @hyufd is correct and Chamberlain is given more credit these days than previously.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
NATO itself obliges all member states to defend themselves and all other NATO states, that would combine the full military might of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Turkey and Canada v Russia.
Hence Putin would never dare invade a NATO member state
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
You're both right, surely. The West have made it abundantly clear that an attack on Ukraine would trigger substantial sanctions but not military intervention. Everyone thinks that an attack on a NATO member would trigger military intervention. (And almost nobody seriously thinks Russia is contemplating invading Sweden or Finland.)
I think that none of this will happen, as I've said, and everyone involved is posturing. But I've no special inside knowledge.
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
This is a very serious issue as the UK actively supports Ukraine with the gratitude of the Baltic states while Germany prevaricates and the EU face an existential crisis between themselves in how to act
This is not an anti EU comment but this could cause very serious damage to EU unity which we all need and want on something as serious as a possible war in Europe
I was keen not to leave the EU, but I am not keen enough to desire our re-unification with the EU states under the flag of the Russian Federation.
We are already allied with most of the EU in military terms via NATO.
It is NATO that keeps peace in Europe, not the EU, especially as Turkey, the USA and Canada are also part of the NATO military alliance
The blind alley you are disappearing down does not end well.
I would hope our Lords and Masters can persuade Mr Putin that invading Ukraine is a very bad idea, and none of the rest of the scenarios we are suggesting will then ever need to happen.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
You're both right, surely. The West have made it abundantly clear that an attack on Ukraine would trigger substantial sanctions but not military intervention. Everyone thinks that an attack on a NATO member would trigger military intervention. (And almost nobody seriously thinks Russia is contemplating invading Sweden or Finland.)
I think that none of this will happen, as I've said, and everyone involved is posturing. But I've no special inside knowledge.
Bold to say that when Russia has already invaded and is currently occupying large parts of Ukraine.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
All a bit grim but where does air power come into this? Would NATO allow Russian planes to control Ukraine airspace?
Yes, unless they want all out war with Russia.
NATO will just focus on ensuring Putin goes no further than Ukraine into a NATO member state like Estonia or Poland
Just give me a wave with your appeasement treaty from the steps of your plane at Heston Aerodrome.
Chamberlain's appeasement strategy gave the UK and France time to rearm and prepare in case Hitler did go too far and invade Poland, which he eventually did. We were not ready for war when he took the Sudetenland and much of Czechosolovakia.
See also the new Jeremy Irons' Netflix film on Chamberlain, he was more strategic than he has been portrayed
Have you seen it on Netflix? I looked on Sunday evening and only the trailer was on there.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Taking military action against Russia is a rather more tough proposition than taking military action against Iraq. The former leads to WW3, the latter does not.
Plus Russia has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council which Iraq did not, so UN approved action was easier when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
No it will not.
There will be no tanks or NATO troops sent to Ukraine. It is not a NATO member state.
Russia also has a veto power on the UN Security Council so there are limits on what the UN can do too unless overwhelming agreement in the UN general assembly for sanctions on Russia.
You haven't a clue about geopolitics
Indeed we have military advisers there already
Maybe this will help your ignorance
BBC News - Russia-Ukraine crisis: UK sending weapons to defend Ukraine, says defence secretary
A few military trainers, if Russia does invade we will not be sending large numbers of regiments to Ukraine.
We might send them to Estonia, Latvia and Poland to contain Putin, we will not send them to start an all out war with Russia
The problem is that nobody, not even yourself, is able to definitely say what will happen if Russia invades Ukraine but neither NATO or the EU will stand aside and let Ukraine fall
How do you specifically propose NATO and/or the EU stop them? What's the plan here?
It’s definitely happening. Quickening slide into war this week with Russia taking their diplomats out. The discussion in this last thread convinces me all sides are up for this war, as a chance to settle old scores, as wars tend to be. Even us. As Malmesbury explained, UK are up for putting Russians and Ukrainians through the meat grinder so we can get our own back on Putin for the assassins in UK. Everyone’s up for this Proxy war, it can’t be stopped.
This really does impact Johnson exit date Big G. A war in Europe of this magnitude and so many players, in reality a proxy war that doesn’t answer the complications of blood and soil in places like Eastern Europe, is a big big thing. I have had chat with my Dad this morning and he feels UK cannot have leadership flux with a war in Europe going on, as things could change too suddenly. I did argue we would still have Boris or Raab as PM, but he was insistent the vote of no confidence has to wait now, and he was all in favour of proper Tories taking back control a couple of weeks ago ☹️
Looks like Tory Leadership election is postponed till after the war Big G. 😕. Too dangerous to sack a PM and have flux with this war going on. 🤷♀️
Nope, we changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
#MyJobHereIsToTeachHistoryToPBers
Also, if there is a major war, do you really want Johnson leading the country through it?
Presumably he would say it wasn't a war and he didn't know about it anyway.
Everyone keeps saying Sue Gray holds Boris’s fate in her hands. But it’s actually Martin Reynolds. For Boris to survive, he has to rebut Dom’s claim he warned him of concerns. Has to claim he never passed on concerns himself. And has to claim he told the PM it was a “work event”. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1483421592738750469
Mr. Al, I'm sure the dogs of Kiev would rejoice if the fool were still in Number 10 at the outbreak of war. The city's human inhabitants might be less reassured.
The % s in the article add up to 78, between 7 runners, leaving a 22% chance of it being someone outside the 7 listed, none of whom can have more than 4% support; meaning there are lots of others with a backable chance.
I think this may be overdoing the outsiders chances rather.
Slightly under rated are those prominent in the betting but not currently in government. The biggest threat to Rishi and others will be the problem of the fact they are unavoidably tainted and at risk from the fallout of the current farrago. If DC has killer stuff on Boris, who has what stuff on the rest of the current government? It feels impossible that the answer in 'no-one' and 'nothing'. Hunt and Tugendhat are unlikely but value.
A 'Foinavon' result is still just about possible.
Worst value are those in government but rubbish. take your pick. Except of course that the Tory membership could do almost anything. They could even choose Steve Baker.
I bloody love Foinavon, laziest horse that ever raced.
Fun fact: Foinavon is a hill in Scotland, and the hill next to it is Arkle, both on the Westminster estate.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
NATO itself obliges all member states to defend themselves and all other NATO states, that would combine the full military might of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Turkey and Canada v Russia.
Hence Putin would never dare invade a NATO member state
Putin is as mad as the March Hare. He doesn't care if he either leaves the Kremlin feet first in a box or becomes the new World King. I suspect he would prefer the latter, but if the former occurs whilst trying, so be it.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
You're both right, surely. The West have made it abundantly clear that an attack on Ukraine would trigger substantial sanctions but not military intervention. Everyone thinks that an attack on a NATO member would trigger military intervention. (And almost nobody seriously thinks Russia is contemplating invading Sweden or Finland.)
I think that none of this will happen, as I've said, and everyone involved is posturing. But I've no special inside knowledge.
"I have lost count of how many times recently I have to had to explain the meaning of the English term “straw man” to my European allies. That is because the best living, breathing “straw man” at the moment is the Kremlin’s claim to be under threat from NATO. In recent weeks the Russian Defence Minister’s comment that the US is “preparing a provocation with chemical components in eastern Ukraine” has made that “straw man” even bigger."
BTW, I think he is a potential "dark horse" candidate for the leadership, with similar appeal to Penny Mordaunt.
It’s definitely happening. Quickening slide into war this week with Russia taking their diplomats out. The discussion in this last thread convinces me all sides are up for this war, as a chance to settle old scores, as wars tend to be. Even us. As Malmesbury explained, UK are up for putting Russians and Ukrainians through the meat grinder so we can get our own back on Putin for the assassins in UK. Everyone’s up for this Proxy war, it can’t be stopped.
This really does impact Johnson exit date Big G. A war in Europe of this magnitude and so many players, in reality a proxy war that doesn’t answer the complications of blood and soil in places like Eastern Europe, is a big big thing. I have had chat with my Dad this morning and he feels UK cannot have leadership flux with a war in Europe going on, as things could change too suddenly. I did argue we would still have Boris or Raab as PM, but he was insistent the vote of no confidence has to wait now, and he was all in favour of proper Tories taking back control a couple of weeks ago ☹️
Looks like Tory Leadership election is postponed till after the war Big G. 😕. Too dangerous to sack a PM and have flux with this war going on. 🤷♀️
Nope, we changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
#MyJobHereIsToTeachHistoryToPBers
I don’t want to disagree with you, and I do enjoy being taught about history on PB as I don’t understand it all just love it.
previous examples of PM change in war was forced, done very quickly. This is voluntarily making a PM lame duck for months and proper replacement months away. Each situation different. This situation, Tory MPs have a choice and are in two minds about it anyway.
I know people are gutted if the leadership election isn’t going to happen and Boris stays there now because of this war. But this war in now a player in the Boris sacking. do you see the point I am making?
Nah, take Chamberlain, he was ousted in May but still remained Leader of the Conservative Party until October, all the Prime Minister needs is to command the confidence of the majority of the House, and we have a new PM very quickly.
#BringBackTheMagicCircle
The PMs who were ousted during war fell because the respective wars were going badly. So I don't think you can use that as a reason to say Johnson will fall just as we go into a war in Ukraine. Maybe after six weeks and it's a clusterfeck from UK point of view, if we are involved, god forbid some how or other.
Also, back in those days you could replace one PM with another pretty quickly.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
I do wonder if the BBC will start announcing the programs and things that will need to go. That may focus minds a bit but the fact it's a less than 50p a month that is being discussed shows how daft the BBC licence freeze is.
I gather the Tories have decided to pick a fight with Strictly Come Dancing and abolish Match of the Day. Brilliant. Why has this Culture Secretary been in obscurity so long? This is surely genius. https://twitter.com/PhilipJCollins1/status/1483370420241842177
Well the BBC could always hire MOTD presenters on more modest salaries. The talking heads on a million quid a year who are clueless about the modern game. You could hire the full Tifo football staff for that, who actually understand modern tactics, rather than the shit they talk of MOTD.
And of course they are going to junk the likes of Strictly, that thing that makes them masses of money.
Hmm, as I recall a couple of days back Francis, you were saying the BBC couldn't keep up with Netflix because it couldn't afford to pay actors and directors the same amount. We can't have it both ways, I would say.
The % s in the article add up to 78, between 7 runners, leaving a 22% chance of it being someone outside the 7 listed, none of whom can have more than 4% support; meaning there are lots of others with a backable chance.
I think this may be overdoing the outsiders chances rather.
Slightly under rated are those prominent in the betting but not currently in government. The biggest threat to Rishi and others will be the problem of the fact they are unavoidably tainted and at risk from the fallout of the current farrago. If DC has killer stuff on Boris, who has what stuff on the rest of the current government? It feels impossible that the answer in 'no-one' and 'nothing'. Hunt and Tugendhat are unlikely but value.
A 'Foinavon' result is still just about possible.
Worst value are those in government but rubbish. take your pick. Except of course that the Tory membership could do almost anything. They could even choose Steve Baker.
I bloody love Foinavon, laziest horse that ever raced.
Fun fact: Foinavon is a hill in Scotland, and the hill next to it is Arkle, both on the Westminster estate.
Both very fine hills indeed - but too low to be classified as Munros. Both Corbetts (hills between 2,500 and 3,000 ft above sea level). That whole area is scenically magnificent.
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
No it will not.
There will be no tanks or NATO troops sent to Ukraine. It is not a NATO member state.
Russia also has a veto power on the UN Security Council so there are limits on what the UN can do too unless overwhelming agreement in the UN general assembly for sanctions on Russia.
You haven't a clue about geopolitics
Indeed we have military advisers there already
Maybe this will help your ignorance
BBC News - Russia-Ukraine crisis: UK sending weapons to defend Ukraine, says defence secretary
A few military trainers, if Russia does invade we will not be sending large numbers of regiments to Ukraine.
We might send them to Estonia, Latvia and Poland to contain Putin, we will not send them to start an all out war with Russia
The problem is that nobody, not even yourself, is able to definitely say what will happen if Russia invades Ukraine but neither NATO or the EU will stand aside and let Ukraine fall
How do you specifically propose NATO and/or the EU stop them? What's the plan here?
NATO won’t do anything as such - maybe bolster up Baltic states.
What I do see happening though is a dusting off of the US strategy for the Russian/Afghan situation - make the Russians bleed without actually doing the fighting. Could even see an unholy alliance of Chechen fighters being lured from Afghanistan and other areas to employ their expertise with IEDs etc and their love of Russians…..
Added to this will most likely be financial freeze - shutting out of SWIFT and other global financial entities which have any link to the US where the US can hold the stick of prison for sanctions busters over non compliant directors.
Could also see Trump’s idea of making Nordstream unviable by placing it within a sanctions situation so that any German entity that deals with any part of Nordstream’s Russian partners is breaking sanctions and directors can expect a friendly US orange jumpsuit welcome and the penalisation of their US subsidiaries.
Finally I would imagine there would be huge pressure to freeze or close down any bank accounts linked however loosely to Russia as this will put pressure on Putin if his guys suddenly find their “hidden” accounts don’t work.
Everyone keeps saying Sue Gray holds Boris’s fate in her hands. But it’s actually Martin Reynolds. For Boris to survive, he has to rebut Dom’s claim he warned him of concerns. Has to claim he never passed on concerns himself. And has to claim he told the PM it was a “work event”. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1483421592738750469
I said this yesterday and this will be the moment Boris goes or stays
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are quite ridiculous
We are not selling arms to Ukraine we are flying them in on C-17s avoiding German airspace
Any attack by Russia on Ukraine will provoke retaliation by NATO
On a personal note my daughter in law in Vancouver and her family are all Ukraine
No it will not.
There will be no tanks or NATO troops sent to Ukraine. It is not a NATO member state.
Russia also has a veto power on the UN Security Council so there are limits on what the UN can do too unless overwhelming agreement in the UN general assembly for sanctions on Russia.
You haven't a clue about geopolitics
Indeed we have military advisers there already
Maybe this will help your ignorance
BBC News - Russia-Ukraine crisis: UK sending weapons to defend Ukraine, says defence secretary
A few military trainers, if Russia does invade we will not be sending large numbers of regiments to Ukraine.
We might send them to Estonia, Latvia and Poland to contain Putin, we will not send them to start an all out war with Russia
The problem is that nobody, not even yourself, is able to definitely say what will happen if Russia invades Ukraine but neither NATO or the EU will stand aside and let Ukraine fall
How do you specifically propose NATO and/or the EU stop them? What's the plan here?
"I have lost count of how many times recently I have to had to explain the meaning of the English term “straw man” to my European allies. That is because the best living, breathing “straw man” at the moment is the Kremlin’s claim to be under threat from NATO. In recent weeks the Russian Defence Minister’s comment that the US is “preparing a provocation with chemical components in eastern Ukraine” has made that “straw man” even bigger."
BTW, I think he is a potential "dark horse" candidate for the leadership, with similar appeal to Penny Mordaunt.
That is indeed a very good piece, and worthy of note that it was published on the government website, rather than given to a newspaper.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Nor Kosovo, or any other bit of ex-Yugoslavia.
Again taking action v Serbia is a rather different proposition to taking military action against Russia.
We would only take military action against Russia if it invaded a NATO member state not Ukraine.
Same as we would only take military action against China if it invaded Japan or South Korea not Taiwan.
I do wonder if the BBC will start announcing the programs and things that will need to go. That may focus minds a bit but the fact it's a less than 50p a month that is being discussed shows how daft the BBC licence freeze is.
I gather the Tories have decided to pick a fight with Strictly Come Dancing and abolish Match of the Day. Brilliant. Why has this Culture Secretary been in obscurity so long? This is surely genius. https://twitter.com/PhilipJCollins1/status/1483370420241842177
Well the BBC could always hire MOTD presenters on more modest salaries. The talking heads on a million quid a year who are clueless about the modern game. You could hire the full Tifo football staff for that, who actually understand modern tactics, rather than the shit they talk of MOTD.
And of course they are going to junk the likes of Strictly, that thing that makes them masses of money.
Hmm, as I recall a couple of days back Francis, you were saying the BBC couldn't keep up with Netflix because it couldn't afford to pay actors and directors the same amount. We can't have it both ways, I would say.
Not inconsistent at all. Drama they can't compete with Netflix. While the BBC want to stick to this outdated model, they will never ever be able to compete. Sticking £10 on the licence fee won't change that. That is essentially the issue, the current arrangement is broken, but as soon as anybody suggests anything different the BBC go full end of the world, we will have to cut every programme ever.
But freezing it also won't mean the end of the biggest show on the BBC and MOTD presenters are paid a large amount for a job where there is lots of competition for that role, and much better talent out there.
Tim Davie says this freeze need £280 million of savings. BBC Three budget, £75 million. Right, get rid of Lineker and co, replaced with cheaper and superior options (could even go for more diversity) that's another £5+ million saved....that's £80 million saved already and if anything that has improved BBC offering.
On topic, I think Sunak's chances are toast if he is still Chancellor come April/May time as the cost of living crisis kicks in.
FWIW - I did hear from someone conducting a focus group in the last 48 hours that the government spin about freezing the BBC licence free as a way of reducing the cost of living has gone down very well.
'It only goes up a fiver a year and that saving will help as my gas bill goes up £50 a month.'
News on BBC radio yesterday was reporting the non-increase in the license fee in the same tones of gravity and breathless indignation and importance that you'd expect them to reserve for an outbreak of war. Honestly, BBC, no-one has any sympathy whatsoever. Just live within your means.
I notice that the BBC have already adopted the position of "we'll just have to scrap all the things you like". Even if you think the government are wrong about the licence fee, the BBC needs to get its head out of the sand and look at what is happening in "broadcasting". The BBC needs to change, and change fast.
It’s definitely happening. Quickening slide into war this week with Russia taking their diplomats out. The discussion in this last thread convinces me all sides are up for this war, as a chance to settle old scores, as wars tend to be. Even us. As Malmesbury explained, UK are up for putting Russians and Ukrainians through the meat grinder so we can get our own back on Putin for the assassins in UK. Everyone’s up for this Proxy war, it can’t be stopped.
This really does impact Johnson exit date Big G. A war in Europe of this magnitude and so many players, in reality a proxy war that doesn’t answer the complications of blood and soil in places like Eastern Europe, is a big big thing. I have had chat with my Dad this morning and he feels UK cannot have leadership flux with a war in Europe going on, as things could change too suddenly. I did argue we would still have Boris or Raab as PM, but he was insistent the vote of no confidence has to wait now, and he was all in favour of proper Tories taking back control a couple of weeks ago ☹️
Looks like Tory Leadership election is postponed till after the war Big G. 😕. Too dangerous to sack a PM and have flux with this war going on. 🤷♀️
Nope, we changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
#MyJobHereIsToTeachHistoryToPBers
I don’t want to disagree with you, and I do enjoy being taught about history on PB as I don’t understand it all just love it.
previous examples of PM change in war was forced, done very quickly. This is voluntarily making a PM lame duck for months and proper replacement months away. Each situation different. This situation, Tory MPs have a choice and are in two minds about it anyway.
I know people are gutted if the leadership election isn’t going to happen and Boris stays there now because of this war. But this war in now a player in the Boris sacking. do you see the point I am making?
SKS won't be gutted.
If there is anything he can do to help keep Johnson in place, he will do it. Maybe he has some influence on Vlad?
Starmer and his socialist party are certainly going to have to get their response right this time, because Boris and his back benchers will be sweetly singing as one and speaking up for the nation as one on this issue at PMQs tomorrow.
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
No10 carefully trying to shift goalposts. Last week, No10 said wait for Sue Gray to establish facts. Now it's clear No10 will say - *regardless of facts* - the issue is PM 'implicitly believed' there was not a party & so did not 'knowingly mislead' Parl. https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1483423717149528068
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
NEW: PM confirms he has spoken to Sue Gray inquiry. In a pool clip with @BethRigby Boris Johnson looks visibly shaken & teary. He denies he was told about BYOB party ahead of time and maintains he believed it was a work event. On his resignation: "Let's see what report says"
Big questions remain over how an event of that size with alcohol and food could have been allowed under the rules even in a work capacity.
Have to say this pool clip has the feel of a PM beaten by the allegations against him. Attempting to muster up a message on Covid and boosters Boris Johnson looks and sounds like a man who knows this could well be the end of the road.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Taking military action against Russia is a rather more tough proposition than taking military action against Iraq. The former leads to WW3, the latter does not.
Plus Russia has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council which Iraq did not, so UN approved action was easier when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The main defence v Russia therefore remains NATO
There are concerns, according to BBC correspondent Mark Orban last, that the EU is about to soften its stance to Russia.
Orban claimed t on TV that in bolstering Ukraine's defences, British forces flying men and gear to the region were asked to avoid German and Dutch airspace. Germany is also reported about threats to freeze Russia out of the global payments system.
If naked aggression from belligerent governments is what works with the EU then maybe we should put 20,000 troops in South Armagh and post the Queen Elizabeth permanently in the Irish Sea.
If RAF fighter sorties over Dublin might get an agreement, perhaps we should do that.
On topic, I think Sunak's chances are toast if he is still Chancellor come April/May time as the cost of living crisis kicks in.
FWIW - I did hear from someone conducting a focus group in the last 48 hours that the government spin about freezing the BBC licence free as a way of reducing the cost of living has gone down very well.
'It only goes up a fiver a year and that saving will help as my gas bill goes up £50 a month.'
News on BBC radio yesterday was reporting the non-increase in the license fee in the same tones of gravity and breathless indignation and importance that you'd expect them to reserve for an outbreak of war. Honestly, BBC, no-one has any sympathy whatsoever. Just live within your means.
I notice that the BBC have already adopted the position of "we'll just have to scrap all the things you like". Even if you think the government are wrong about the licence fee, the BBC needs to get its head out of the sand and look at what is happening in "broadcasting". The BBC needs to change, and change fast.
Although its nonsense to suggest the freezing the licence fee is really making a difference to hard up families, at the same time BBC going full back to Wigan pier stuff when they still get £4bn a year, is a bit like MPs complaining about not getting a pay rise.
I imagine if they had raised the licence fee by £10 a year the public wouldn't be very happy.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
I'd like to hear of other sightings before we draw conclusions - but there should be enough of us PBScots over a wide enough area with eg @RochdalePioneers@Farooq@Eabhal@malcolmg and @DavidL for instance to report back to confirm if there really is a change of approach. This is of interest well beyond individual affiliation.
I'm unlikely to help. In a tenement and seldom get any literature at all (even during the election last year).
What Ross does if Johnson doesn't go will be pivotal. The CSU idea. I just can't think of a good name - unionist is rubbish.
Surely if Johnson doesn’t go then Ross will have to go?
If the name “Unionist” isn’t inappropriate for the principal Unionist party then the movement is finished.
What’s the alternative? The Loyalist Party? I think not. The Britain Party? Perhaps.
I’ve genuinely got a great and novel suggestion, but I’m not going to give it. For obvious reasons.
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
Lammy (Shadow Foreign) and Healey (Shadow Defence) were in Kiev a few days ago
I think Starmer would be pleased in a way, if the nutters try their pro-Russian thing again.
He can bin even more of them.
Plenty of friends of Russia on the government benches too.
We are not going to war with Russia over Ukraine, and everyone knows that. Though everything will be done to make it as expensive for Putin in blood and treasure.
Some more easy savings for the BBC that nobody will notice. Get rid of Bellator Cage fighting deal. Even hardcore MMA fans don't really give a shit about what is the Vanarama National League equivalent of MMA and the BBC stick it hidden away on iPlayer.
Re cost of living...MPs getting a bit pay rise will go down like a bucket of cold sick.
Tricky for government, as MPs are people too and are affected by cost of living as well and government obviously already in bad books with own backbenchers.
But optics will be terrible. Public will think f##king rule breaking taking the piss PM and then all the f##kers get a pay rise
Could they spin it as being their policy for high inflation?
"We expect all employers to increase pay by at least the inflation rate."
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
I'd like to hear of other sightings before we draw conclusions - but there should be enough of us PBScots over a wide enough area with eg @RochdalePioneers@Farooq@Eabhal@malcolmg and @DavidL for instance to report back to confirm if there really is a change of approach. This is of interest well beyond individual affiliation.
I'm unlikely to help. In a tenement and seldom get any literature at all (even during the election last year).
What Ross does if Johnson doesn't go will be pivotal. The CSU idea. I just can't think of a good name - unionist is rubbish.
Surely if Johnson doesn’t go then Ross will have to go?
If the name “Unionist” isn’t inappropriate for the principal Unionist party then the movement is finished.
What’s the alternative? The Loyalist Party? I think not. The Britain Party? Perhaps.
I’ve genuinely got a great and novel suggestion, but I’m not going to give it. For obvious reasons.
The Unionist Party for the Scottish party would be fine, it worked in the 1950s
On topic, I think Sunak's chances are toast if he is still Chancellor come April/May time as the cost of living crisis kicks in.
FWIW - I did hear from someone conducting a focus group in the last 48 hours that the government spin about freezing the BBC licence free as a way of reducing the cost of living has gone down very well.
'It only goes up a fiver a year and that saving will help as my gas bill goes up £50 a month.'
News on BBC radio yesterday was reporting the non-increase in the license fee in the same tones of gravity and breathless indignation and importance that you'd expect them to reserve for an outbreak of war. Honestly, BBC, no-one has any sympathy whatsoever. Just live within your means.
I notice that the BBC have already adopted the position of "we'll just have to scrap all the things you like". Even if you think the government are wrong about the licence fee, the BBC needs to get its head out of the sand and look at what is happening in "broadcasting". The BBC needs to change, and change fast.
Cut the licence fee by half. If we are lucky, the huge amount of drivel the BBC produces would then decrease
A war between Russia and Ukraine could cause Boris Johnson problems, but also give him opportunities.
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
Labour has (on the Front Bench at least) been robust on Ukraine:
Lammy (Shadow Foreign) and Healey (Shadow Defence) were in Kiev a few days ago
I think Starmer would be pleased in a way, if the nutters try their pro-Russian thing again.
He can bin even more of them.
Starmer can read polls, he knows Corbyn's ratings went into the toilet and didn't recover the moment he went pro Russia after Salisbury.
That was the moment that the general public, who don’t follow politics in detail, got plain sight of Corbyn’s world view. There was a state-sponsored terrorist attack on British soil, and he was on the side of the terrorists.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Taking military action against Russia is a rather more tough proposition than taking military action against Iraq. The former leads to WW3, the latter does not.
Plus Russia has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council which Iraq did not, so UN approved action was easier when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The main defence v Russia therefore remains NATO
There are concerns, according to BBC correspondent Mark Orban last, that the EU is about to soften its stance to Russia.
Orban claimed t on TV that in bolstering Ukraine's defences, British forces flying men and gear to the region were asked to avoid German and Dutch airspace. Germany is also reported about threats to freeze Russia out of the global payments system.
If naked aggression from belligerent governments is what works with the EU then maybe we should put 20,000 troops in South Armagh and post the Queen Elizabeth permanently in the Irish Sea.
If RAF fighter sorties over Dublin might get an agreement, perhaps we should do that.
Germany and France as NATO members would still be obliged to send troops to defend Poland and the Baltic states from Russia however, both are not only NATO but EU member states
The default assumption here seems to be that Russia would rapidly crush Ukraine, even if there was some underlying resistance. I am not so convinced that is true.
The Russian backed and armed forces took a right kicking in Armenia, losing over 200 tanks, mainly to drones. My understanding is that the same technology has been supplied to Ukraine by Turkey. Whether they are able to deploy it so effectively remains to be seen but Russia will not have a walk over here.
Betfair "cashout" on Australian open Men's outright sounds like it's made a right mess.
That’s what happens when they void bets on one runner, once the race has started.
Voided Djoko bets but made no downwards adjustment (akin to racing rule 4) to bets matched on other players prior to the void. Gift to backers at the expense of layers.
Yes but arguably that is just a hazard of antepost markets. The real problem is the people who thought they'd cashed out their Novak bets for a profit now finding they have laid the whole field at those artificially high prices and one of them is going to win.
The one dragging the Tories down is Johnson . You seem just irritated that finally his lies are coming home to roost , the fact that he’s a pathological liar doesn’t seem to bother you at all .
NEW: PM confirms he has spoken to Sue Gray inquiry. In a pool clip with @BethRigby Boris Johnson looks visibly shaken & teary. He denies he was told about BYOB party ahead of time and maintains he believed it was a work event. On his resignation: "Let's see what report says"
Big questions remain over how an event of that size with alcohol and food could have been allowed under the rules even in a work capacity.
Have to say this pool clip has the feel of a PM beaten by the allegations against him. Attempting to muster up a message on Covid and boosters Boris Johnson looks and sounds like a man who knows this could well be the end of the road.
Lords watchdog launches inquiry into Michelle Mone over ‘VIP lane’ contract Investigation into Tory peer relates to PPE company awarded £203m in government contracts
The commissioner confirmed that the investigation would be for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which cover the requirement that peers publicly register “all relevant interests”, and prohibit them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”.
The commissioner also stated that Mone would be investigated under the more general provisions of the code’s paragraph 9, which includes that peers “should always act on their personal honour”; must never accept “any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; and “must not seek to profit from membership of the house by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”
Pretty sure Money will now be consigned to that ghastly Johnson type of Toryism with which the SCons have absolutely no connection.
Will be fascinating seeing the election material the Scottish Conservatives are shortly going to print up. They’ll use blue, but I bet the word “Conservative” is conspicuous by its absence, as will any reference to them being in power in London.
Will they continue with Ruth Davidson’s moderately successful ‘No Surrender’ strategy? Initial intelligence ( @Carnyx ) suggests not.
Certainly the List MSP leaflet I got the other day was a total contrast to the usual text of No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref No to Indyref even at parish council level (if we had parish councils up here) and with 'Conservative' in the smallest possible script compatible with Electoral Commission law and the wavelength of light.
It was all about roundabouts and only the fetching Sevco FC Blue colour scheme really drove it home it wasn't the local council's LD candidate.
Union? Us advocate union and subordination to that thing in No. 10? Oh no dear me, no siree.
Perhaps our other PBScots could report back on any other sightings?
The Union seems to have become a topic the principal Unionist party seems unwilling to advocate unless pressed. Klaxons should be sounding at BritNat central office.
I'd like to hear of other sightings before we draw conclusions - but there should be enough of us PBScots over a wide enough area with eg @RochdalePioneers@Farooq@Eabhal@malcolmg and @DavidL for instance to report back to confirm if there really is a change of approach. This is of interest well beyond individual affiliation.
I'm unlikely to help. In a tenement and seldom get any literature at all (even during the election last year).
What Ross does if Johnson doesn't go will be pivotal. The CSU idea. I just can't think of a good name - unionist is rubbish.
Surely if Johnson doesn’t go then Ross will have to go?
If the name “Unionist” isn’t inappropriate for the principal Unionist party then the movement is finished.
What’s the alternative? The Loyalist Party? I think not. The Britain Party? Perhaps.
I’ve genuinely got a great and novel suggestion, but I’m not going to give it. For obvious reasons.
The Unionist Party for the Scottish party would be fine, it worked in the 1950s
Er… you do understand *why* it worked in the first half of the 20th century, don’t you?
.@BorisJohnson refusing repeatedly to say whether a PM should stand down if he is found to have lied to Parliament…his Chancellor @RishiSunak said earlier the ministerial code is clear on such matters… Won’t verbalise publicly the consequences if report finds he was in wrong. https://twitter.com/skysarahjane/status/1483428084938383362
The default assumption here seems to be that Russia would rapidly crush Ukraine, even if there was some underlying resistance. I am not so convinced that is true.
The Russian backed and armed forces took a right kicking in Armenia, losing over 200 tanks, mainly to drones. My understanding is that the same technology has been supplied to Ukraine by Turkey. Whether they are able to deploy it so effectively remains to be seen but Russia will not have a walk over here.
It's not my assumption; I just think we should be ready to help if asked by Kyiv.
The only thing more worrying than a Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a UK response to one led by Johnson
There will not be a UK response, certainly not a military one as the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Only if Russia invaded Poland or the Baltic states for example, which are NATO members, would there be a UK military response. At most there would be some economic sanctions
You do know we are already providing arms to Ukraine
We will not be sending ground troops, tanks or fighter jets to defend Ukraine, a non NATO member state.
We sell arms to lots of countries
You are off your head with this analysis. It is not just annexing Ukraine that concerns most of us it is what happens next too.
If Putin takes Ukraine without so much as a whimper, why not all the former Soviet satellite states, plus Finland Sweden and Norway?
Finland and Sweden are not in NATO, so we would not be obliged to defend them either.
We would only be required to defend Norway and the Baltic states which are in NATO
You can't defend either Norway or the Baltic States without defending Sweden and Finland.
You can, if Sweden and Finland want to join NATO then we can defend them, not before. Same with non NATO Ireland.
Our terms of NATO membership do not prevent us from going to war to defend other countries if we wish.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Taking military action against Russia is a rather more tough proposition than taking military action against Iraq. The former leads to WW3, the latter does not.
Plus Russia has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council which Iraq did not, so UN approved action was easier when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The main defence v Russia therefore remains NATO
There are concerns, according to BBC correspondent Mark Orban last, that the EU is about to soften its stance to Russia.
Orban claimed t on TV that in bolstering Ukraine's defences, British forces flying men and gear to the region were asked to avoid German and Dutch airspace. Germany is also reported about threats to freeze Russia out of the global payments system.
If naked aggression from belligerent governments is what works with the EU then maybe we should put 20,000 troops in South Armagh and post the Queen Elizabeth permanently in the Irish Sea.
If RAF fighter sorties over Dublin might get an agreement, perhaps we should do that.
Germany and France as NATO members would still be obliged to send troops to defend Poland and the Baltic states from Russia however, both are not only NATO but EU member states
Well fair enough it would only be astonishing if they didn't, wouldn't it?
Far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik gave a Nazi salute in court in Norway today as he launched an unlikely bid for parole after a decade behind bars. The 42-year-old also carried placards bearing white supremacist slogans, confirming victims' fears that he will use the hearing in order to grandstand.
Far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik gave a Nazi salute in court in Norway today as he launched an unlikely bid for parole after a decade behind bars. The 42-year-old also carried placards bearing white supremacist slogans, confirming victims' fears that he will use the hearing in order to grandstand.
The WSJ reports that Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard, the troubled publisher behind Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, which has been facing crisis over the last year following numerous reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination. A seismic gaming deal
Probably shark week for NutNut so he's not getting his conkers drained.
If the party's price for Johnson staying on involves NutNut being frozen out of influence entirely, then those conkers may be waiting some time for their next drainage date....
The WSJ reports that Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard, the troubled publisher behind Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, which has been facing crisis over the last year following numerous reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination. A seismic gaming deal
The default assumption here seems to be that Russia would rapidly crush Ukraine, even if there was some underlying resistance. I am not so convinced that is true.
The Russian backed and armed forces took a right kicking in Armenia, losing over 200 tanks, mainly to drones. My understanding is that the same technology has been supplied to Ukraine by Turkey. Whether they are able to deploy it so effectively remains to be seen but Russia will not have a walk over here.
It's not my assumption; I just think we should be ready to help if asked by Kyiv.
Help how? Some weapons before the fight starts looks a perfectly reasonable response but do we really want our C17s shot down if the fireworks start? I am not so sure. I am also far from sure we want men on the ground either.
What outfit was she wearing? What does it signify?
Have to ask Southern Observer about that, he had a very keen eye for what her outfits meant.
"Southam" please. Southam is a pleasant Warwickshire village midway between Evesham and Banbury.
I know, I once lived quite near there. Bloody autocorrect.
I once did research for my GCSE geography project in the centre of Southam, asking shoppers where they had travelled from and why they visit Southam rather than the larger nearby centres of Rugby, Banbury, Leamington etc. Amongst the shoppers was an old white South African lady who told me she goes there because "well, it's to do with the colour of the skin".
The default assumption here seems to be that Russia would rapidly crush Ukraine, even if there was some underlying resistance. I am not so convinced that is true.
The Russian backed and armed forces took a right kicking in Armenia, losing over 200 tanks, mainly to drones. My understanding is that the same technology has been supplied to Ukraine by Turkey. Whether they are able to deploy it so effectively remains to be seen but Russia will not have a walk over here.
Yep. Makes it all the more surprising. Another Russia/NATO proxy conflict
What outfit was she wearing? What does it signify?
Have to ask Southern Observer about that, he had a very keen eye for what her outfits meant.
"Southam" please. Southam is a pleasant Warwickshire village midway between Evesham and Banbury.
I know, I once lived quite near there. Bloody autocorrect.
I once did research for my GCSE geography project in the centre of Southam, asking shoppers where they had travelled from and why they visit Southam rather than the larger nearby centres of Rugby, Banbury, Leamington etc. Amongst the shoppers was an old white South African lady who told me she goes there because "well, it's to do with the colour of the skin".
Comments
It is NATO that keeps peace in Europe, not the EU, especially as Turkey, the USA and Canada are also part of the NATO military alliance
Although I am no expert.
NATO itself obliges all member states to defend themselves and all other NATO states, that would combine the full military might of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Turkey and Canada v Russia.
Hence Putin would never dare invade a NATO member state
I think that none of this will happen, as I've said, and everyone involved is posturing. But I've no special inside knowledge.
Approve: 20% (-3 from Jan 10th)
Disapprove: 63% (+7)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-approval?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_tracker&utm_campaign=gov_approval https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1483420217661435906/photo/1
Should remain: 20% (-11)
Should stand down: 64% (+16)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-boris-johnson-remain-as-leader-of-the-conservative-party?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_tracker&utm_campaign=johnson_stay_or_go https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1483420224288346114/photo/1
The same is true for Starmer: if we decide to aid Ukraine, even in minor ways, I can see the Stop the War lunatic fringe within his party screaming loudly. If he backs action against Russia, how widely would his party back him?
Or would he go against any action?
I would hope our Lords and Masters can persuade Mr Putin that invading Ukraine is a very bad idea, and none of the rest of the scenarios we are suggesting will then ever need to happen.
Kuwait wasn't in NATO either.
Plus Russia has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council which Iraq did not, so UN approved action was easier when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The main defence v Russia therefore remains NATO
Bring your own bazooka. RSVP
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1483421592738750469
Fun fact: Foinavon is a hill in Scotland, and the hill next to it is Arkle, both on the Westminster estate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-article-by-the-defence-secretary-on-the-situation-in-ukraine
Interesting opening comments:
"I have lost count of how many times recently I have to had to explain the meaning of the English term “straw man” to my European allies. That is because the best living, breathing “straw man” at the moment is the Kremlin’s claim to be under threat from NATO. In recent weeks the Russian Defence Minister’s comment that the US is “preparing a provocation with chemical components in eastern Ukraine” has made that “straw man” even bigger."
BTW, I think he is a potential "dark horse" candidate for the leadership, with similar appeal to Penny Mordaunt.
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-responds-to-the-latest-developments-in-ukraine/
Lammy (Shadow Foreign) and Healey (Shadow Defence) were in Kiev a few days ago
What I do see happening though is a dusting off of the US strategy for the Russian/Afghan situation - make the Russians bleed without actually doing the fighting. Could even see an unholy alliance of Chechen fighters being lured from Afghanistan and other areas to employ their expertise with IEDs etc and their love of Russians…..
Added to this will most likely be financial freeze - shutting out of SWIFT and other global financial entities which have any link to the US where the US can hold the stick of prison for sanctions busters over non compliant directors.
Could also see Trump’s idea of making Nordstream unviable by placing it within a sanctions situation so that any German entity that deals with any part of Nordstream’s Russian partners is breaking sanctions and directors can expect a friendly US orange jumpsuit welcome and the penalisation of their US subsidiaries.
Finally I would imagine there would be huge pressure to freeze or close down any bank accounts linked however loosely to Russia as this will put pressure on Putin if his guys suddenly find their “hidden” accounts don’t work.
We would only take military action against Russia if it invaded a NATO member state not Ukraine.
Same as we would only take military action against China if it invaded Japan or South Korea not Taiwan.
That is just realpolitik
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1483393509050753029
But freezing it also won't mean the end of the biggest show on the BBC and MOTD presenters are paid a large amount for a job where there is lots of competition for that role, and much better talent out there.
Tim Davie says this freeze need £280 million of savings. BBC Three budget, £75 million. Right, get rid of Lineker and co, replaced with cheaper and superior options (could even go for more diversity) that's another £5+ million saved....that's £80 million saved already and if anything that has improved BBC offering.
He can bin even more of them.
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1483423717149528068
Big questions remain over how an event of that size with alcohol and food could have been allowed under the rules even in a work capacity.
Have to say this pool clip has the feel of a PM beaten by the allegations against him. Attempting to muster up a message on Covid and boosters Boris Johnson looks and sounds like a man who knows this could well be the end of the road.
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1483425242567651332
Orban claimed t on TV that in bolstering Ukraine's defences, British forces flying men and gear to the region were asked to avoid German and Dutch airspace. Germany is also reported about threats to freeze Russia out of the global payments system.
If naked aggression from belligerent governments is what works with the EU then maybe we should put 20,000 troops in South Armagh and post the Queen Elizabeth permanently in the Irish Sea.
If RAF fighter sorties over Dublin might get an agreement, perhaps we should do that.
I imagine if they had raised the licence fee by £10 a year the public wouldn't be very happy.
If the name “Unionist” isn’t inappropriate for the principal Unionist party then the movement is finished.
What’s the alternative?
The Loyalist Party? I think not.
The Britain Party? Perhaps.
I’ve genuinely got a great and novel suggestion, but I’m not going to give it. For obvious reasons.
Seems Cummings is now dragging the whole party down with him, not just Boris
https://order-order.com/2022/01/18/poll-shows-rishi-wont-save-the-tories/
We are not going to war with Russia over Ukraine, and everyone knows that. Though everything will be done to make it as expensive for Putin in blood and treasure.
That's a few more million quid saved.
Given his butt plug crafting, you might say we have lost one impaler but gained another. Net standstill.
https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1483426803922444288
What a numpty
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1483426894011850761
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1483425653546434561
The Russian backed and armed forces took a right kicking in Armenia, losing over 200 tanks, mainly to drones. My understanding is that the same technology has been supplied to Ukraine by Turkey. Whether they are able to deploy it so effectively remains to be seen but Russia will not have a walk over here.
And regularly read them out to the public on TV.
I daresay so was the grieving Queen, alone in that Chapel at Windsor.
Won’t verbalise publicly the consequences if report finds he was in wrong.
https://twitter.com/skysarahjane/status/1483428084938383362
Far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik gave a Nazi salute in court in Norway today as he launched an unlikely bid for parole after a decade behind bars. The 42-year-old also carried placards bearing white supremacist slogans, confirming victims' fears that he will use the hearing in order to grandstand.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10413901/Anders-Breivik-gives-Nazi-salute-enters-parole-hearing.html
The WSJ reports that Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard, the troubled publisher behind Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, which has been facing crisis over the last year following numerous reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination. A seismic gaming deal
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1483428774591053836
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/every-game-and-studio-microsoft-now-owns/
* Shit its 2022 isn't...they bought them 2020.
UK PM Boris Johnson "categorically" denies anyone warned him the No 10 drinks party broke lockdown rules
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1483428767024431110