Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
I’m trying to get my head around all this Islamophobia row now, but there are pieces missing I can only guess at. There could be a lot more to this. My gut feeling right now it’s out in the open it’s going need need the Party Leader quickly instigating a proper investigation, even without Ghani filling in a complaint form? We all agree on that?
The Labour Party got reams and reams how to attack if Conservative Party drags its heels, because they simply repeat everything the Conservatives threw at Labour about anti-semitism. You see what I mean how excruciating it might get, not specifically on Boris alone but the whole Conservative Party, if action isn’t taken swiftly?
What do we make of the “I wasn’t sure who I was talking to was actually in government or not” comment, from Ghani? You would know your whip and head whip wouldn’t you? Did Comments came from a top Spad, possibly Cummings?
Jav has called Ghani a friend, but he has still reiterated the “you want it looked into, complete the required form” line. Ambushing Boris in leadership debate Jav got a promise of Islamophobia report from the incoming leader, but has been quiet about alleged problem since. So how much of this did his friend share with Jav and when?
Expecting more from Jav any moment? Jav certainly wouldn’t have much time for the Cummings and goings as it were if he was involved.
Just before I go, I’ll just flag this post up to @HYUFD The Conservatives Party Leadership really do have to take action on this first thing in the morning, don’t they? 😟
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
Bet the Poles were really chuffed about it in 1945.
The German behaviour - while expecting NATO to defend them - reminds me of another incident.
A Canadian politician was on a TV program hammering on about how the terrible, evil missile defence system that Bush II wanted would drag Canada in, since it would encompass the whole North American continent.
A US general, who had been invited on the program, said, quite mildly, that the US wouldn't dream of violating Canadian sovereignty like that. The "Keep Out" zone (the defended area - the system would ignore missiles attacking outside the defended areas) would be tailored to defend only those who positively wanted into the system.
The politician sat there with an open mouth for a couple of seconds, then started shrieking that it was immoral not to defend Canada against an attack....
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Strong image. Though I think political images reached their endpoint (high or low people may choose) when Trump was depicted as the God Emperor of Mankind.
@tonylgardner As bad as Brexit has been, I fully admit that a significant upside is that the UK can act swiftly in foreign Affairs including Ukraine rather than being dragged into endless EU waffle. No doubt this has been Noticed in Washington.
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
Even as a Brexiteer I would agree with that. I cannot think of an effective EU military response to anything and we went our own way even when we were members for that reason. It's not a new thing.
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
I think you can say that the UK has a rather long history of not being in favour of people arbitrarily re-drawing the map of Europe.
Other places, we're on that like Oasis on a pile of cocaine....
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
The best time to stop a war is before it starts.
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
Strong image. Though I think political images reached their endpoint (high or low people may choose) when Trump was depicted as the God Emperor of Mankind.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
That's a question for Hitler, surely? If anyone has the framing that "oh Germany invaded Poland, let's start a world war over it", then I'd gently suggest that they have entirely the wrong idea of how and when war started. The declarations of war by the UK and France in the days following the Polish invasion ought to be seen as a response to the outbreak, not the moment of outbreak.
Put simply, Germany started it, we retaliated.
(ignoring the the east-Asian theatre which was well underway some years before)
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
It would massively raise the stakes for us too.
It would but I think it would make a major hot war far less likely. Given the consequences of a war its something that we should be thinking about but not alone, obviously. It would need some other serious players too, ideally the US, possibly the French (who have been very quiet about all this).
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
That's a question for Hitler, surely? If anyone has the framing that "oh Germany invaded Poland, let's start a world war over it", then I'd gently suggest that they have entirely the wrong idea of how and when war started. The declarations of war by the UK and France in the days following the Polish invasion ought to be seen as a response to the outbreak, not the moment of outbreak.
Put simply, Germany started it, we retaliated.
(ignoring the the east-Asian theatre which was well underway some years before)
The Polish Guarantee was more about drawing a clear line in the sand, than any especial love for Poland.
As in - Invade Poland, start the next World War. Your choice.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
The best time to stop a war is before it starts.
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
You sound like the proverbial Hicksville newspaper on the eve WW1:
“The Bumfuck Mercury has repeatedly warned the Kaiser…”
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
Even as a Brexiteer I would agree with that. I cannot think of an effective EU military response to anything and we went our own way even when we were members for that reason. It's not a new thing.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to forgotten how ineffective a "European" response was in Yugoslavia. Could the horrors of Sarajevo and Srebrenica have been prevented by more assertive action from the start?
There's no point going in to something like this unless you are sure what victory looks like. Putin presumably wants a friendly Government in Kiev (similar to Minsk I would imagine)but is he prepared for the cost? Are we prepared for the humanitarian impact? If it doesn't go well in the Ukraine for Putin, will this destabilise Belarus and could Putin end up facing two unfriendly Governments?
Even now, I suspect there's a deal to be done - there always is. What price will Kiev and by definition the rest of Europe pay to start a de-escalation and a withdrawal of Russian forces?
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
The best time to stop a war is before it starts.
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
Exactly. This has the potential to be massively destablising for western Europe as a whole and Germany in particular. And their pussilamity is making it more likely.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
That's a question for Hitler, surely? If anyone has the framing that "oh Germany invaded Poland, let's start a world war over it", then I'd gently suggest that they have entirely the wrong idea of how and when war started. The declarations of war by the UK and France in the days following the Polish invasion ought to be seen as a response to the outbreak, not the moment of outbreak.
Put simply, Germany started it, we retaliated.
(ignoring the the east-Asian theatre which was well underway some years before)
The Polish Guarantee was more about drawing a clear line in the sand, than any especial love for Poland.
As in - Invade Poland, start the next World War. Your choice.
Sure. I'm just keen that we get the right framing for these conflicts. I'm not having anyone saying we started WW2, that's just wrong. Similarly with Russia/Ukraine. We have the right to defend our Ukrainian friends if Ukraine requests it and it not being OUR war of aggression. That's on Russia (assuming we're talking about repelling a Russian invasion of Ukraine).
I think a few people are stuck in Iraq mode where we absolutely WERE the aggressors.
Russian state media will be in overdrive to portray the west as the aggressors. We don't have to buy their nonsense and we oughtn't make their job easier for them.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Writing rules and constitutional provisions is often seemingly no protection for many in the world. So I suppose its really a question of whether it would assist in our case in making such acting with impunity harder.
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
Airforce uniforms were the coolest:
1. Luftwaffe 2. USAAF 3. RAF
U-Boot uniforms also not bad but could get quite stinky I imagine.
Quite a lot of U-Boat crews were dressed in slightly re-worked UK battle dress from Dunkirk!
3. RAF not to be confused with the Imperial Russian Cavalry?
A month ago on this site I predicted that Putin is likely to invade Ukraine this winter. Since then the White House, among others, have come out with a similar assessment.
Let’s talk now about how such invasion may unfold and what its primary goals might be 🧵
And I have little doubt that he is correct that the Russians could grab Eastern Ukraine. The question that remains unresolved in this scenario, though, is:
(a) is the goal to use the leverage of having grabbed Eastern Ukraine to force a pro-Russian government for all of the Ukraine?
or
(b) to have a separate puppet state in Eastern Ukraine
or
(c) to absorb Eastern Ukraine into Russia
In scenarios (b) and (c), it is by no means clear that Western Ukraine would fall into line as a pro-Russian state. After all, pro-Russian parties garner the vast majority of their votes in Eastern Ukraine.
Those that are left in the West will be terrified of Russia, for sure, but also incredibly angry at them. And democracy wouldn't be suspended in Western Ukraine.
Ultimately, I get that Putin wants geopolitical influence and all. But it seems to be tactics largely devoid of strategy. Russia exports oil, coal and natural gas. Demand for oil is being impacted by the increasing electrification of ...well... everything. Demand for coal has been hammered. And it used to be that Russia (and Norway) were the only possible exporters of gas to Europe. But the rise of LNG fundamentally changes that: back in 2000 Russia exports of gas were about 10x the global LNG market. Now, the LNG market is bigger. A decade from now, the LNG market will be 2-3x larger than Russian exports.
That's like three new Russias of natural gas coming on line - only they can sell their gas to anyone in the world, and not just to the people at the end of the pipe. Perhaps Putin sees now as the last time when he can exert pressure through the gas price?
But it also seems rather short sighted. Russia - fundamentally - has dreadful demographics and is extremely reliant on the export of commodities. If the price of natural gas and oil were to halve, it would find itself in terrible trouble. Russia needs the rest of the World, because it produces practically nothing - beyond energy and food - that it consumes.
Putin's decision making does have echoes of the thinking in Germany in 1914 that it was better to go to war with Russia sooner rather than later because of the perceived growing Russian effectiveness in its military (ironic really given WW1*). Not that Ukraine could beat Russia but that its growing military preparations and hardware purchases would make it more confident to stand up to Russia and / or increase the military cost to Russia significantly of any future invasion. Chances are war now happens but, as you said, what happens then?
* For Rog et al, WW = World War
(c) would achieve one of the ambitions of the Greater Russian types.
For the 1914 German decision there is some interesting modern scholarship. Why did Kaiser Fuckwit abandon the Treaty with Russia? This left an opportunity for the French and they were on it like a tramp on chips.
For years people said it was because he was less good at his job than the UK DfE.....
More recently, it has been pointed out that the Prussian aristocracy/German military wanted to expand into what is now Poland. They wanted a Greater Prussia. Since this was occupied by Russia, problem.
WWI, in this thesis, was about knocking out the French, so the Germans could take the opportunity from Serbia etc to go to war with Russia, and grab what they really wanted.
It is interesting to note that "Poland must be destroyed" was enthusiastically received by the German high command in WWII - one Claus Von Stauffenberg disagreed with Hitler on lots, but said he had that one right....
It probably wasn't only Poland that was of interest. The Baltic areas had many Germanic-descended noblemen and, as future actions showed, the Germans were particularly interested in that area.
The thesis is from those who argue that Hitler was simply going for a maximalist version of all the Greater Germany ideas.
- Without the Empire, Austria was ethnically German (at least as far as the Nazis gave a shit) - Sudetenland etc - The expansion east - etc
Each of those had long roots - Hitler pulled them all together and went for the Demented Meth Head version of all of them. Which is why he enjoyed broad support from *all* the ultra-nationalists. He aimed to make all the hardest of hard core versions of their wildest fantasies come true....
Yes, that makes sense. HItler didn't mind a bit of plagarising when it came to ideas.
Not so much that - but that the Nazi movement and Hitler didn't just turn up and invent themselves. That they were the end product of a long tradition in the political and social structures of Germany.
Hitler himself proclaimed himself the protector of Germany and German-ness. The whole point of the Nazi's was a weird fusion of the past, present and a nightmare future. Hence stuff like this
EDIT: Hitler below is being depicted as a leader of a fantasy version of the Teutonic Order. Guess where those dudes did their partying?
"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."
As I recall the Germans were very interested in Paris fashion. They were all over Coco Channel like a tramp on chips. Perhaps it was the Boss in them (Hugo)....
On a serious note. Before WWI the German Staff came to the realisation that neither Germany or France could successfully attack across their mutual border. Not enough space to fight with the size of armies, too many prepared positions.
Instead of taking that as awesome "We are protected from France, we have defeated encirclement, High Fives!", this is why they decided they had to invade Belgium.
Nazis wore most fashionable uniforms of WW2, by a long short. With SS pioneering dressed-in-black look.
Rule 7 of the Really Important Rules
7. Best dressed army loses.
Winners:
Though note that nattier uniforms of US Army, compared to British, helped (along with higher pay) t make GIs definitely winners on the UK home front!
Minus ten points though because the white v black GI’s used to have gun fights and shoot outs over here.
Not required, or even frequent, but it DID happen,m true disgrace to US and our military.
Gave Brits (at the time) both thrill of horrified outrage and warm feelings of (pre-Paki bashing) superiority. Both lingering unto the present hour.
Though did nothing (or next to) to dissuade British women from 8 to 88, from consorting with sharp-dressed GIs.
Officers deployed to guard Downing Street would have a detailed knowledge of the comings and goings at Number 10 and would therefore be in a position to corroborate some of the most damning allegations that have emerged in recent weeks, such as whether a suitcase of alcohol was brought in to one event on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
I can see the outcome of the Gray report now - the police did nothing (regardless of the fact protection police are a very different department) so no crime occurred therefore nothing to report.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Downing Street officials were once privately hopeful that the Sue Gray report would fail to lay any direct criticism at the Prime Minister’s door.
However, as the expected publication date slipped, the full extent of what the senior civil servant has been examining has emerged – and it would appear worrying for Boris Johnson.
The Prime Minister’s official diary is among the sources being examined as part of the probe, The Telegraph can disclose.
It comes as over the weekend, it emerged that security pass logs which record all of the comings-and-goings at Downing Street have also been looked at.
It is also understood that Martin Reynolds, the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary, who organised the May 20 garden party attended by Mr Johnson despite alleged warnings from two senior members of staff, has helped Ms Gray extensively with her report.
The Sunday Times reported that there are concerns Mr Reynolds has told Ms Gray he checked with Mr Johnson whether to proceed, or can point to a message he sent to Mr Johnson, with one of his colleagues telling the newspaper that “Martin doesn’t have much to lose”.
Officers deployed to guard Downing Street would have a detailed knowledge of the comings and goings at Number 10 and would therefore be in a position to corroborate some of the most damning allegations that have emerged in recent weeks, such as whether a suitcase of alcohol was brought in to one event on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
I'm unclear whether you are rejecting the comparison because you believe that as Corbyn was not removed for the allegations it means they were meaningless. Which would be strange given it likely had an impact on the outcome you set out in your second sentence.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Remove Boris quickly and the problem disappears - keep him in place and the -Robles will continue to mount..
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
All true. I wonder why some Conservatives are so keen to follow so closely in exactly these footsteps. But it's your gig, knock yourselves out.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
I'm unclear whether you are rejecting the comparison because you believe that as Corbyn was not removed for the allegations it means they were meaningless. Which would be strange given it likely had an impact on the outcome you set out in your second sentence.
To be honest outside Barnet I doubt anti Semitism had much impact on the election, even if it should have. There are few Jews in the redwall and they happily voted for Corbyn in 2017 but went Tory in 2019 when he failed to back getting Brexit done.
Most Muslims also vote Labour not Tory, though of course that is no excuse for Islamaphobia
Officers deployed to guard Downing Street would have a detailed knowledge of the comings and goings at Number 10 and would therefore be in a position to corroborate some of the most damning allegations that have emerged in recent weeks, such as whether a suitcase of alcohol was brought in to one event on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
That's a question for Hitler, surely? If anyone has the framing that "oh Germany invaded Poland, let's start a world war over it", then I'd gently suggest that they have entirely the wrong idea of how and when war started. The declarations of war by the UK and France in the days following the Polish invasion ought to be seen as a response to the outbreak, not the moment of outbreak.
Put simply, Germany started it, we retaliated.
(ignoring the the east-Asian theatre which was well underway some years before)
The guarantee to Poland was in the context of a German threat, which is one reason why we declared war on Germany but not the USSR.
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
The best time to stop a war is before it starts.
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
Problem is the West, broadly defined, can make the invasion very costly for Russia if it chooses, but it doesn't have many options to prevent the invasion if Russia decides to ignore the after the fact costs of going ahead,
Ukraine itself also has this problem. It can probably make the invasion costly but it can't stop Russia invading in the first place.
Officers deployed to guard Downing Street would have a detailed knowledge of the comings and goings at Number 10 and would therefore be in a position to corroborate some of the most damning allegations that have emerged in recent weeks, such as whether a suitcase of alcohol was brought in to one event on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
Police officers are so good they can have perfect recall of events around No 10 they were not even present for of course, as history has shown.
I hope for everyone's sake, that the corroborating witness doesn't provide a statement that is exactly the same as the officers statement (including spelling errors), despite being a civilian* living 200 miles away?
*Actually a retired policeman and good friend of the officer in question.
I’m trying to get my head around all this Islamophobia row now, but there are pieces missing I can only guess at. There could be a lot more to this. My gut feeling right now it’s out in the open it’s going need need the Party Leader quickly instigating a proper investigation, even without Ghani filling in a complaint form? We all agree on that?
The Labour Party got reams and reams how to attack if Conservative Party drags its heels, because they simply repeat everything the Conservatives threw at Labour about anti-semitism. You see what I mean how excruciating it might get, not specifically on Boris alone but the whole Conservative Party, if action isn’t taken swiftly?
What do we make of the “I wasn’t sure who I was talking to was actually in government or not” comment, from Ghani? You would know your whip and head whip wouldn’t you? Did Comments came from a top Spad, possibly Cummings?
Jav has called Ghani a friend, but he has still reiterated the “you want it looked into, complete the required form” line. Ambushing Boris in leadership debate Jav got a promise of Islamophobia report from the incoming leader, but has been quiet about alleged problem since. So how much of this did his friend share with Jav and when?
Expecting more from Jav any moment? Jav certainly wouldn’t have much time for the Cummings and goings as it were if he was involved.
Just before I go, I’ll just flag this post up to @HYUFD The Conservatives Party Leadership really do have to take action on this first thing in the morning, don’t they? 😟
I think there are quite a few Tories who don't care whether the party is seen as Islamophobic or not, unless it costs votes.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
'The Conservative MP Aaron Bell, who used to work for Bet365, went to three Euro 2020 games with Entain, Flutter and Gamesys, accepting tickets worth £6,955.60. Last year he told the Guardian he had “declared all hospitality promptly and transparently”'
Relatively few voters are waiting to read the Gray report to form a view of the issue, according to polling by YouGov for The Times. Fifty-one per cent believe that Johnson should resign as prime minister whatever Gray’s report says, including 26 per cent of people who voted Conservative in 2019. Nineteen per cent think he should remain as prime minister regardless of the findings. Sixteen per cent think that Johnson’s future should depend on what the report says.
"I don't believe in I broke any rules. That is why I lied to parliament about anything taking place, then did an interview where I said that nobody told me it was against the rules." The man is demented. Incapable of learning any lessons.
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
Even as a Brexiteer I would agree with that. I cannot think of an effective EU military response to anything and we went our own way even when we were members for that reason. It's not a new thing.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to forgotten how ineffective a "European" response was in Yugoslavia. Could the horrors of Sarajevo and Srebrenica have been prevented by more assertive action from the start?
There's no point going in to something like this unless you are sure what victory looks like. Putin presumably wants a friendly Government in Kiev (similar to Minsk I would imagine)but is he prepared for the cost? Are we prepared for the humanitarian impact? If it doesn't go well in the Ukraine for Putin, will this destabilise Belarus and could Putin end up facing two unfriendly Governments?
Even now, I suspect there's a deal to be done - there always is. What price will Kiev and by definition the rest of Europe pay to start a de-escalation and a withdrawal of Russian forces?
I am really struggling to see what that deal looks like. The current leadership of the Ukraine aspire to be a part of the EU. They look almost entriely westward for their economy and democratic principles. Russia wants the Ukraine as a subject state, entirely within their sphere of influence. The Poles and Baltic states are inevitably looking on with some apprehension as they see how little most of the western democracies seem to care.
Officers deployed to guard Downing Street would have a detailed knowledge of the comings and goings at Number 10 and would therefore be in a position to corroborate some of the most damning allegations that have emerged in recent weeks, such as whether a suitcase of alcohol was brought in to one event on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
'The Conservative MP Aaron Bell, who used to work for Bet365, went to three Euro 2020 games with Entain, Flutter and Gamesys, accepting tickets worth £6,955.60. Last year he told the Guardian he had “declared all hospitality promptly and transparently”'
That's £2,300 a match? Which admittedly I'd pay to get out of watching a kickball match, but it sounds steep nonetheless
If Boris is ousted because of what is in the Gray report - which I still doubt - prepare for an avalanche of complaints about the power of unelected bureaucrats, the 'outrage' of an official leading to removal of the PM.
Nevermind it would be removal by political procedural means as a result of his own actions. Who 'reveals' it would be immaterial.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet in 2019. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
To be fair, Churchill did ask the military to prepare a War Plan to take back Eastern Europe.
But apparently people were a bit cold on the idea of following up WWII with WWIII, without a tea break.
It does leap up from the page appears the Yanks happy to stand back and let the communists take Europe and install their local communists as puppet governments! Though, also true, London stood back and let this happen too, as well as not aiding people slaughtered in uprisings 😢
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
American Twitter is full of reps and dems trying to outdo each other in ‘no American must die for Kiev’ rhetoric. Putin has a free hand
Ukraine has over 200,000 troops and over 1 million reserves and they know their country better than the Russians, a big help, especially in winter.
They can put up a strong defence. We should just continue to send them supplies only, not troops, troops should be reserved to protect Nato nations only
And if those troops start to get massacred from the air what do we do then? Anything? Or do we try to impose a no fly zone? How does the EU cope with 1m+ refugees, and a lot more if the Ukraine starts to lose?
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
The best time to stop a war is before it starts.
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
Well, no one disagrees about that. The question is how best to avoid that war.
Sending UK or other NATO combat troops would exactly justify Putins concerns about extending NATO.
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Operation Save Big Dog turns into Operation Poop-a-Scoop
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Or let anyone else actually read it, after you’ve 24 hours to draft your spin?
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Ed Miliband is as Jewish as Javid is Muslim. Which is to say, neither are believers. I see what you're doing here, and it's not right.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
It’s a straightforward question though - should the leadership launch an investigation into this first thing in the morning, yes or no?
To be fair, Churchill did ask the military to prepare a War Plan to take back Eastern Europe.
But apparently people were a bit cold on the idea of following up WWII with WWIII, without a tea break.
It does leap up from the page appears the Yanks happy to stand back and let the communists take Europe and install their local communists as puppet governments! Though, also true, London stood back and let this happen too, as well as not aiding people slaughtered in uprisings 😢
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Why would it be a difficult finding? The man believes he broke no rules.
Perception of the U.K. changing amongst Congressional staffers:
@apmassaro3 You gotta wonder if part of the excellence of the British response to Putin is driven by the need to demonstrate that Brexit has not slowed them down on foreign policy and possibly even get a leg up on the EU. If that is the case, this is a positive side effect of Brexit
The EU is nothing to do with NATO, we were involved in the invasion of Iraq, other EU states were not. I'm not quite sure to what the "excellence of our response" amounts apart from a flea bite to the hide of an elephant but there you go.
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
Even as a Brexiteer I would agree with that. I cannot think of an effective EU military response to anything and we went our own way even when we were members for that reason. It's not a new thing.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to forgotten how ineffective a "European" response was in Yugoslavia. Could the horrors of Sarajevo and Srebrenica have been prevented by more assertive action from the start?
There's no point going in to something like this unless you are sure what victory looks like. Putin presumably wants a friendly Government in Kiev (similar to Minsk I would imagine)but is he prepared for the cost? Are we prepared for the humanitarian impact? If it doesn't go well in the Ukraine for Putin, will this destabilise Belarus and could Putin end up facing two unfriendly Governments?
Even now, I suspect there's a deal to be done - there always is. What price will Kiev and by definition the rest of Europe pay to start a de-escalation and a withdrawal of Russian forces?
I am really struggling to see what that deal looks like. The current leadership of the Ukraine aspire to be a part of the EU. They look almost entriely westward for their economy and democratic principles. Russia wants the Ukraine as a subject state, entirely within their sphere of influence. The Poles and Baltic states are inevitably looking on with some apprehension as they see how little most of the western democracies seem to care.
Poland and the Baltic states are in NATO unlike Ukraine, an entirely different ballgame
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
It’s a straightforward question though - should the leadership launch an investigation into this first thing in the morning, yes or no?
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet in 2019. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Fake news, Luciana Berger served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet for a while.
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Ed Miliband is as Jewish as Javid is Muslim. Which is to say, neither are believers. I see what you're doing here, and it's not right.
Ed Miliband is in the Shadow Cabinet now, he was not at the 2019 general election
'The Conservative MP Aaron Bell, who used to work for Bet365, went to three Euro 2020 games with Entain, Flutter and Gamesys, accepting tickets worth £6,955.60. Last year he told the Guardian he had “declared all hospitality promptly and transparently”'
That's £2,300 a match? Which admittedly I'd pay to get out of watching a kickball match, but it sounds steep nonetheless
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Operation Save Big Dog turns into Operation Poop-a-Scoop
Through all the (rightful) criticism of Germany, the West really doesn’t have many options as far as I can see.
The US is not terribly interested. If Russia decide to dismember Ukraine, they will.
Yes, it isn't worth starting WW3 over, and everyone West of the Carpathians knows that.
Do you think Poland was worth starting WW2 over?
Bet the Poles were really chuffed about it in 1945.
They are. They count themselves as war victors, but ended up being sold down the river to Stalin. (Not that we had much option).
Operation was a success but the patient died. I doubt the Poles were as thrilled as you think
We had just won WW2 with Nazi Germany, we were not then immediately going to start WW3 with Stalin's Russia by going into Eastern Europe
That's a negative, sir. Stalin's Russia had just won ww2 with Nazi Germany.
With us and the Americans.
Going to war with Stalin after would have led immediately to WW3 after millions had already been killed in WW2. There was no appetite for it
I'm sort of agreeing with you, but I am afraid you need to reassess the importance of your country in the scheme of things. I personally could declare war on the PRC tomorrow. That’s a conflict with 1.4bn people. It does not follow that I would be putting 1.4bn lives at risk
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet in 2019. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Fake news, Luciana Berger served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet for a while.
And later stated that the anti-semitism in the Labour party forced her out....
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Ed Miliband is as Jewish as Javid is Muslim. Which is to say, neither are believers. I see what you're doing here, and it's not right.
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Operation Save Big Dog turns into Operation Poop-a-Scoop
These Islamaphobia claims knock the Corbyn's anti Semitism ones into insignificance. The Tories are in very deep shit. Deservedly
Was Corbyn ever removed as Labour leader for anti Semitism allegations? No he led Labour at 2 general elections, only stepping down after a landslide defeat in the second
Exactly. No one ever suggested Jews were denied advancement under Corbyn on account of their faith. That would have been a very dark day indeed. But that's exactly what the Tories are being accused of.
There was not a single Jew in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet in 2019. Javid is in the Cabinet and of Muslim heritage
Fake news, Luciana Berger served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet for a while.
She was not at the 2019 general election, in fact she had defected to the LDs as she found Corbyn Labour's antisemitism so bad
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Erskine May says he can? Maybe? (not all of section included)
Ministerial statements
19.21Ministers have a presumptive right to make statements in the House on a range of topics within their ministerial remit. These may include policy and administration matters (the Speaker has ruled that such statements must relate to ministerial matters being made on behalf of the Government and not be delivered in a personal or party capacity)
stating the advice they have tendered to the Sovereign regarding their retention of office or the dissolution of Parliament; announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business .
Such statements are usually volunteered spontaneously.
Prior notice to the Speaker is required and other than in exceptional circumstances should be given before the daily conferencebut neither the Speaker's permission nor the leave of the House is required. Neither the content of a ministerial statement, nor of answers given in response to questions following a statement, are a matter for the Speaker...
While these statements are usually taken immediately after questions (including urgent questions), and before the commencement of the main business of the day, ministerial statements, including statements on future business, have exceptionally been permitted by the Speaker, where circumstances justify it, at other times, for example:
immediately after prayers or after Members had been sworn on a day when the House had been recalled; after the disposal of motions at the commencement of public business; following the moment of interruption; immediately before the half-hour adjournment debate.
In extremis, the Speaker has also permitted statements between orders of the day and even during the course of consideration on an order of the day.
Johnson's strategy according to The Times, I wonder, if he'll send Michael Ellis again?
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
I can't help feeling that their wheezes would be more cunning if they didn't keep leaking them in advance.
Comments
The point is our EU membership or lack of it is entirely irrelevant - we have decided to take the line we have and it's the line we would have taken whether in the EU or not.
This is a really dangerous situation and personally think that there is a lot to be said for trying to stop it before it starts. Moving some typhoons and some American F15s to the Ukraine now would massively raise the stakes for Russia and just maybe make them think twice.
@HYUFD
The Conservatives Party Leadership really do have to take action on this first thing in the morning, don’t they? 😟
A Canadian politician was on a TV program hammering on about how the terrible, evil missile defence system that Bush II wanted would drag Canada in, since it would encompass the whole North American continent.
A US general, who had been invited on the program, said, quite mildly, that the US wouldn't dream of violating Canadian sovereignty like that. The "Keep Out" zone (the defended area - the system would ignore missiles attacking outside the defended areas) would be tailored to defend only those who positively wanted into the system.
The politician sat there with an open mouth for a couple of seconds, then started shrieking that it was immoral not to defend Canada against an attack....
(Sanctions is a notable exception to this, however).
Other places, we're on that like Oasis on a pile of cocaine....
We reported in Dec that an officer was present in No 10 the night of the Christmas party on Dec 18th 2020 who could have seen/heard it.
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-14/did-an-alarm-alert-police-to-a-downing-street-christmas-party https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1485371009939165184/photo/1
The Germans have not fully thought through the consequences of millions of Ukrainian refugees heading West.
If anyone has the framing that "oh Germany invaded Poland, let's start a world war over it", then I'd gently suggest that they have entirely the wrong idea of how and when war started. The declarations of war by the UK and France in the days following the Polish invasion ought to be seen as a response to the outbreak, not the moment of outbreak.
Put simply, Germany started it, we retaliated.
(ignoring the the east-Asian theatre which was well underway some years before)
As in - Invade Poland, start the next World War. Your choice.
“The Bumfuck Mercury has repeatedly warned the Kaiser…”
There's no point going in to something like this unless you are sure what victory looks like. Putin presumably wants a friendly Government in Kiev (similar to Minsk I would imagine)but is he prepared for the cost? Are we prepared for the humanitarian impact? If it doesn't go well in the Ukraine for Putin, will this destabilise Belarus and could Putin end up facing two unfriendly Governments?
Even now, I suspect there's a deal to be done - there always is. What price will Kiev and by definition the rest of Europe pay to start a de-escalation and a withdrawal of Russian forces?
I think a few people are stuck in Iraq mode where we absolutely WERE the aggressors.
Russian state media will be in overdrive to portray the west as the aggressors. We don't have to buy their nonsense and we oughtn't make their job easier for them.
Gave Brits (at the time) both thrill of horrified outrage and warm feelings of (pre-Paki bashing) superiority. Both lingering unto the present hour.
Though did nothing (or next to) to dissuade British women from 8 to 88, from consorting with sharp-dressed GIs.
They may also have been in a position to comment on the wider drinking culture in Downing Street during lockdown, and whether they issued any warnings to party attendees or officials.
Amid reports that some Number 10 staffers have been “circling the wagons” by holding back information from the Gray inquiry, and even deleting incriminating photographs and WhatsApp messages, the police officers are likely to be seen as impartial observers.
While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.
One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”
Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/23/number-10-police-questioned-sue-gray-downing-street-parties/
Downing Street officials were once privately hopeful that the Sue Gray report would fail to lay any direct criticism at the Prime Minister’s door.
However, as the expected publication date slipped, the full extent of what the senior civil servant has been examining has emerged – and it would appear worrying for Boris Johnson.
The Prime Minister’s official diary is among the sources being examined as part of the probe, The Telegraph can disclose.
It comes as over the weekend, it emerged that security pass logs which record all of the comings-and-goings at Downing Street have also been looked at.
It is also understood that Martin Reynolds, the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary, who organised the May 20 garden party attended by Mr Johnson despite alleged warnings from two senior members of staff, has helped Ms Gray extensively with her report.
The Sunday Times reported that there are concerns Mr Reynolds has told Ms Gray he checked with Mr Johnson whether to proceed, or can point to a message he sent to Mr Johnson, with one of his colleagues telling the newspaper that “Martin doesn’t have much to lose”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/23/sue-gray-examine-boris-johnsons-official-diary-part-partygate/
Most Muslims also vote Labour not Tory, though of course that is no excuse for Islamaphobia
But apparently people were a bit cold on the idea of following up WWII with WWIII, without a tea break.
Sam Coates on Sky just saying “MPs are acting like Rome is about to fall”. Hmm
This is about the ouster of some Visigoths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_support_during_the_Warsaw_Uprising
2.2 Prague uprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
Ukraine itself also has this problem. It can probably make the invasion costly but it can't stop Russia invading in the first place.
*Actually a retired policeman and good friend of the officer in question.
The British Empire won WWII by giving the world time
The US won WWII by building the materiel
The USSR won WWII by spilling blood
Indeed, the congruence between the people who rejected that policy to Stalin's little friends in Washington helped kick of the Red Spy Scares.....
'The Conservative MP Aaron Bell, who used to work for Bet365, went to three Euro 2020 games with Entain, Flutter and Gamesys, accepting tickets worth £6,955.60. Last year he told the Guardian he had “declared all hospitality promptly and transparently”'
Going to war with Stalin after would have led immediately to WW3 after millions had already been killed in WW2. There was no appetite for it
Relatively few voters are waiting to read the Gray report to form a view of the issue, according to polling by YouGov for The Times. Fifty-one per cent believe that Johnson should resign as prime minister whatever Gray’s report says, including 26 per cent of people who voted Conservative in 2019. Nineteen per cent think he should remain as prime minister regardless of the findings. Sixteen per cent think that Johnson’s future should depend on what the report says.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-still-believes-he-broke-no-lockdown-rules-at-downing-street-event-bkb3vj23w
The man is demented. Incapable of learning any lessons.
Is the country going to have reason to party!
Incredible.
Talk about pig headed.
Everyone over the age of about three in this country thinks he broke the rules.
Nevermind it would be removal by political procedural means as a result of his own actions. Who 'reveals' it would be immaterial.
Downing Street is drawing up plans to “own the narrative” of Gray’s report, The Times has been told. Members of Johnson’s team have approached Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to ask whether Johnson could go to the dispatch box almost immediately after Gray delivers her findings to address MPs, regardless of what business is planned for the Commons at that time.
Johnson’s team is especially keen for him to speak on the same day as the findings are published if the report is critical. “If it’s leaning towards a difficult finding then you don’t want an overnight period for a narrative to build,” a minister said.
Sending UK or other NATO combat troops would exactly justify Putins concerns about extending NATO.
Which is to say, neither are believers. I see what you're doing here, and it's not right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Jungle etc
There are no winners here. Racism is racism.
NEW THREAD
Ministerial statements
19.21Ministers have a presumptive right to make statements in the House on a range of topics within their ministerial remit. These may include policy and administration matters (the Speaker has ruled that such statements must relate to ministerial matters being made on behalf of the Government and not be delivered in a personal or party capacity)
stating the advice they have tendered to the Sovereign regarding their retention of office or the dissolution of Parliament;
announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament;
or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business
.
Such statements are usually volunteered spontaneously.
Prior notice to the Speaker is required and other than in exceptional circumstances should be given before the daily conferencebut neither the Speaker's permission nor the leave of the House is required. Neither the content of a ministerial statement, nor of answers given in response to questions following a statement, are a matter for the Speaker...
While these statements are usually taken immediately after questions (including urgent questions), and before the commencement of the main business of the day, ministerial statements, including statements on future business, have exceptionally been permitted by the Speaker, where circumstances justify it, at other times, for example:
immediately after prayers or after Members had been sworn on a day when the House had been recalled;
after the disposal of motions at the commencement of public business;
following the moment of interruption;
immediately before the half-hour adjournment debate.
In extremis, the Speaker has also permitted statements between orders of the day and even during the course of consideration on an order of the day.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4709/ministerial-statements/?highlight=urgent statement
@SamCoatesSky
·
28m
Tory MPs acting as if Rome is about to fall
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1485375452202082315