Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
“The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.
The State Department also warned people not to travel to Ukraine and Russia due to the ongoing tension and "potential for harassment against US citizens".
Biden is seriously scarred by the Afghanistan shambles. I think analysts are wrong to read too much into there being specific intel.
I think the chance of Russia fully invading Ukraine is remote, and the chance of significant Russian attacks in eastern Ukraine is much lower than the media hysteria would lead us to believe.
It’s in everyone’s interests to hype this up.
Calm down, people.
Agree; as far as UK is concerned I suspect much of the hype is a diversionary tactic to 'Save Big Dog'!
I think you're both on the wrong end of that.
If Putin is going to ramp up his war on Ukraine, it is rational for him to do it ASAP. Ukraine's defences are not going to get weaker from now on in. And NATO expenditure which turned in 2014 or so, will see some things coming through (slowly).
Plus hard ground for tanks, gas demand reduced in summer etc.
Yes, Putin has a short window of opportunity, a month or so, maybe six weeks at the most before the thaw starts. He’ll also want the maximum pressure on European gas supply to co-incide, just so Germany knows for sure who’s the new king of Europe. There’s an awful lot of anti-tank weaponry and expertise heading to Kiev at the moment, which as you say won’t be getting weaker any time soon.
The FCO sent out a travel advisory for Ukraine at the weekend - essential travel only. Up to that point it was "be careful, have an escape plan, be prepared to get out quickly"
Ordering non-essential embassy personal and diplomats families to leave a potential conflict zone is standard stuff. And has been for many many years.
The fact is that as a chap said on the R4 the other day, Putin has marched his army up the hill (like the Grand Old Duke Of York). Either
1) he accepts a considerable loss of face, and marches them all back down again 2) gets some concessions that are a big deal in Russia. 3) starts a war.
The problem with the 2) is that what he wants is incompatible with what Ukraine wants. Completely. And no Western politician wants to play Chamberlain vs Benes.
And even if they did, Ukraine is unlikely to give in. It's effectively existential for them as an independent country.
“The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.
The State Department also warned people not to travel to Ukraine and Russia due to the ongoing tension and "potential for harassment against US citizens".
Biden is seriously scarred by the Afghanistan shambles. I think analysts are wrong to read too much into there being specific intel.
I think the chance of Russia fully invading Ukraine is remote, and the chance of significant Russian attacks in eastern Ukraine is much lower than the media hysteria would lead us to believe.
It’s in everyone’s interests to hype this up.
Calm down, people.
Agree; as far as UK is concerned I suspect much of the hype is a diversionary tactic to 'Save Big Dog'!
I think you're both on the wrong end of that.
If Putin is going to ramp up his war on Ukraine, it is rational for him to do it ASAP. Ukraine's defences are not going to get weaker from now on in. And NATO expenditure which turned in 2014 or so, will see some things coming through (slowly).
Plus hard ground for tanks, gas demand reduced in summer etc.
Yes, Putin has a short window of opportunity, a month or so, maybe six weeks at the most before the thaw starts. He’ll also want the maximum pressure on European gas supply to co-incide, just so Germany knows for sure who’s the new king of Europe. There’s an awful lot of anti-tank weaponry and expertise heading to Kiev at the moment, which as you say won’t be getting weaker any time soon.
The FCO sent out a travel advisory for Ukraine at the weekend - essential travel only. Up to that point it was "be careful, have an escape plan, be prepared to get out quickly"
Kyiv is about 110 miles from the northern border. If it were to kick off (and none of us really knows just how likely that is) it wouldn't be possible to evacuate, so this is merely sensible precaution.
At 600mph, that's 11 minutes flying time. Its also within the range of not-especially-big rockets.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
And yet China are allegedly besties with the loons who have taken control of Afghanistan, the one's apparently completely incapable of feeding their own people.
Listening to unvaxxed NHS staff on the radio, a good reminder that many people employed in the public sector consider it a device for providing them a job, not a service for their fellow citizens.
Seems remarkable coming from a nurse, who in my experience consider it a real vocation (and put up with dreadful shift patterns etc), but still. It's an attitude that you sense from some BBC staff, teachers and civil servants too.
Wonder if I'm being a bit unreasonable. If that makes me a Tory then... shit.
“The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.
The State Department also warned people not to travel to Ukraine and Russia due to the ongoing tension and "potential for harassment against US citizens".
Biden is seriously scarred by the Afghanistan shambles. I think analysts are wrong to read too much into there being specific intel.
I think the chance of Russia fully invading Ukraine is remote, and the chance of significant Russian attacks in eastern Ukraine is much lower than the media hysteria would lead us to believe.
It’s in everyone’s interests to hype this up.
Calm down, people.
Agree; as far as UK is concerned I suspect much of the hype is a diversionary tactic to 'Save Big Dog'!
I think you're both on the wrong end of that.
If Putin is going to ramp up his war on Ukraine, it is rational for him to do it ASAP. Ukraine's defences are not going to get weaker from now on in. And NATO expenditure which turned in 2014 or so, will see some things coming through (slowly).
Plus hard ground for tanks, gas demand reduced in summer etc.
Yes, Putin has a short window of opportunity, a month or so, maybe six weeks at the most before the thaw starts. He’ll also want the maximum pressure on European gas supply to co-incide, just so Germany knows for sure who’s the new king of Europe. There’s an awful lot of anti-tank weaponry and expertise heading to Kiev at the moment, which as you say won’t be getting weaker any time soon.
The FCO sent out a travel advisory for Ukraine at the weekend - essential travel only. Up to that point it was "be careful, have an escape plan, be prepared to get out quickly"
Kyiv is about 110 miles from the northern border. If it were to kick off (and none of us really knows just how likely that is) it wouldn't be possible to evacuate, so this is merely sensible precaution.
At 600mph, that's 11 minutes flying time. Its also within the range of not-especially-big rockets.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
And yet China are allegedly besties with the loons who have taken control of Afghanistan, the one's apparently completely incapable of feeding their own people.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
And yet China are allegedly besties with the loons who have taken control of Afghanistan, the one's apparently completely incapable of feeding their own people.
The Chinese government are total shits.
Unquestionably. The most evil regime the world has seen since...Mao.
Given the operations disclosed around that bought and paid for MP it is entirely possible that they have worked to undermine Ghani. It would be consistent.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
And yet China are allegedly besties with the loons who have taken control of Afghanistan, the one's apparently completely incapable of feeding their own people.
The Chinese government are total shits.
Unquestionably. The most evil regime the world has seen since...Mao.
Given the operations disclosed around that bought and paid for MP it is entirely possible that they have worked to undermine Ghani. It would be consistent.
What donations have there been to the Tory party from Chinese interests?
A regime which sanctions British Parliamentarians would have no hesitation in seeking to get one of them sacked. And, frankly, I can well believe this government falling for such pressure.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
A couple of Russian friends and family - the anti-Putin ones think he will.
A pro-Putin chap I know (actually a I-don't-like-him-but...) bangs on about how Ukraine is a made up country and there is no Ukrainian culture or language.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
Get him back! Three or four apologies from we all know who and he might be persuaded to return. Not only a fine poster but one of the best header writers.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
Listening to unvaxxed NHS staff on the radio, a good reminder that many people employed in the public sector consider it a device for providing them a job, not a service for their fellow citizens.
Seems remarkable coming from a nurse, who in my experience consider it a real vocation (and put up with dreadful shift patterns etc), but still. It's an attitude that you sense from some BBC staff, teachers and civil servants too.
Wonder if I'm being a bit unreasonable. If that makes me a Tory then... shit.
I wonder about these 'NHS Staff". I've seen unvaxed people saying such things as "I'm a midwife and .....' but there are lot of people who work in hospitals who have very limited patient contact, and indeed not a lot of contact with people who do have patient contact. I'm not defending them, but I wonder whether there's too much 'shorthand' here.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
Reading around she had been lined up to lead HS2 so it was a curious change that probably had Grant Shapps' fingers all over it as much as anyone elses.
According to LabourList, Labour shortlist for Birmingham Erdington by-election:
Ashley Bertie (former Assistant Police Crime Commissioner in West Midlands when Jamieson was the PCC) Paulette Hamilton (Cllr for Holyhead ward in Birmingham)
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
Most damning for now is the manner in which her compliant was dealt with. Party channels were entirely inappropriate - this was a government matter - and in any event had already been ruled not fit for purpose. It's entirely clear that no one had any intention of taking the complaint seriously.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Thatcher was replaced while British troops were on the front line and about to go into battle. Which makes that far more serious than what is about to happen (or not) in Ukraine.
According to LabourList, Labour shortlist for Birmingham Erdington by-election:
Ashley Bertie (former Assistant Police Crime Commissioner in West Midlands when Jamieson was the PCC) Paulette Hamilton (Cllr for Holyhead ward in Birmingham)
Anyone else have a reflexive twitch when West Midlands police force is mentioned?
Fascinating release of a declassified document revealing a conversation between Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton over Nato expansion to former states of the USSR. Yeltsin says Russia is half European 'so leave Europe to us', Clinton replies 'so you want half of Asia too.'
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
According to LabourList, Labour shortlist for Birmingham Erdington by-election:
Ashley Bertie (former Assistant Police Crime Commissioner in West Midlands when Jamieson was the PCC) Paulette Hamilton (Cllr for Holyhead ward in Birmingham)
Anyone else have a reflexive twitch when West Midlands police force is mentioned?
Ashley was never a policeman, he was the assistant to the elected Commissioner. On one hand his CV does scream never had a real job, on the other he does seem to understand the justice system which could be useful
Listening to unvaxxed NHS staff on the radio, a good reminder that many people employed in the public sector consider it a device for providing them a job, not a service for their fellow citizens.
Seems remarkable coming from a nurse, who in my experience consider it a real vocation (and put up with dreadful shift patterns etc), but still. It's an attitude that you sense from some BBC staff, teachers and civil servants too.
Wonder if I'm being a bit unreasonable. If that makes me a Tory then... shit.
I wonder about these 'NHS Staff". I've seen unvaxed people saying such things as "I'm a midwife and .....' but there are lot of people who work in hospitals who have very limited patient contact, and indeed not a lot of contact with people who do have patient contact. I'm not defending them, but I wonder whether there's too much 'shorthand' here.
What is being described is the old, old idea "Producer Interest".
In the modern world of expecting customer service, this is very jarring. Hence politicians banging on about "John Lewis" style public service - John Lewis were early in the game (in the UK) of making sure the customer didn't leave the store unhappy as a policy.
When we had our first child, my wife an I encountered the "natural childbirth" group of midwives in the NHS. They were starkly anti-technology of any kind, to the point they were actually rather worrying.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
You probably have to take the total number of MPs into account which was only 315 when the May vote took place.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
The incredible bit is that they actually gave that as the reason. Virtually any other reason would have been acceptable. Really shows though that they don't see anything wrong with being anti-Muslim.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer than necessary if the balloon goes up?
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
Steve Brine is icy, which I guess is at a lower temperature than anyone else's icyness.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer than necessary if the balloon goes up?
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
The incredible bit is that they actually gave that as the reason. Virtually any other reason would have been acceptable. Really shows though that they don't see anything wrong with being anti-Muslim.
What gets me is that it's the sort of excuse that people who heard it would remember.
Now it's perfectly possible that one or other parties are lying here but given the reputation of the current management who do you think is the more likely to be being truthful, the person who knew the excuse was racist or the person who denies saying it.
Since being made redundant and handing back the works iphone, I carry only a dumb Nokia that cost about £20 many years ago. I do own a cheap smartphone that stays off almost all the time. That said, I do not think phones themselves are the problem so much as they offer an eternal loop of activity between email, texts, Whatsapp, Facebook and Tiktok so that keeping up with all of them is like painting the Forth Bridge.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
It is fantastic work. And yet... this probably took a day of work to pull together? Perhaps less? Why is it that no paid journalist is able to do this? Instead we get Laura Kuennsberg giving us endless contradictory anonymous reports and guesses about where the arithmetic lies.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
"mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much."
Well, there are reasons for that. And the fault is not Ukraine, but Russia.
The Ukrainians are facing a situation where they will be unwillingly subsumed (again) into a larger country that has not treated them well in the past. The Holodmor will weigh heavily on people's minds.
Putin has taken more than a muscular stance. He has invaded other countries before, and annexed parts of others. He has murdered using radioactive poisons in the UK. He is developing weapons that (allegedly) pollute the skies with radioactivity - as a by-product (the Petrel).
You should not excuse it by calling it 'muscular'. You should call it what it is: wrong.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer than necessary if the balloon goes up?
Still, only if the other choice was Corbyn.
Yes, Corbyn might favour a diplomatic solution like, well, the United States and most other countries.
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
If, and it's a huge if, that did turn out to be the case. Well, her coming forward last week will have done British democracy a very important service.
I went back to see what happened on the 13th Feb 2020. looking at the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/13/boris-johnson-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-at-a-glance it was the day Sajid Javid (a Muslim) was removed as Chancellor alongside various others. No reason was given for Nus being removed but it's hard to see a reason both why you would get rid of a junior minister and why you would provide a reason - beyond someone in power didn't like her.
You might get rid of a junior Minister simply to make space for someone else. It need have nothing to do with them at all.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
Most damning for now is the manner in which her compliant was dealt with. Party channels were entirely inappropriate - this was a government matter - and in any event had already been ruled not fit for purpose. It's entirely clear that no one had any intention of taking the complaint seriously.
Agreed. It wasn't dealt with at all really, as far as one can see.
Listening to unvaxxed NHS staff on the radio, a good reminder that many people employed in the public sector consider it a device for providing them a job, not a service for their fellow citizens.
Seems remarkable coming from a nurse, who in my experience consider it a real vocation (and put up with dreadful shift patterns etc), but still. It's an attitude that you sense from some BBC staff, teachers and civil servants too.
Wonder if I'm being a bit unreasonable. If that makes me a Tory then... shit.
If you’re still wondering if you’re being a bit unreasonable, still some work to do on the full blown Torydom.
This bad: rebel MPs are considering submitting subject access requests to Mark Spencer, the chief whip, so he’d have to hand over messages and emails about them
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Not sure. An 80-seat majority with a large minority perhaps majority of Cons voters either unaware of what's going on apart from more "politics"; or look on Boris still as a great PM as he got Brexit done (100% of a sample of two provincial taxi drivers for example, in this latter category) with Partygate not seen as such an egregious issue.
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
You probably have to take the total number of MPs into account which was only 315 when the May vote took place.
I don't know if there's anything in it, and I can't find the tweet which I read that suggested it, but might there have been a Chinese hand in Nus Ghani's demotion?
The suggestion was that it may have been related to Gardiner's chum Christine Lee. She, or another not yet revealed, passed on the message to their Tory contacts that Ghani's stance on the Uyghurs wasn't popular among the Chinese expats and any donations would dry up while she was in place.
That would have something to do with her 'Muslimness'.
Appalling if so.
Nus Ghani has been very sound on China's persecution of the Uighurs.
Appalling. But more plausible than the generic claims that she was sacked for her “Muslimness”
English Labour break into the upper 40s. Klaxons at central office.
England Lab 46% Con 36% LD 10%
Scotland SNP 45% Lab 22% Con 18% LD 9%
Wales Lab 44% Con 29% PC 11% LD 10%
(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)
That's interesting, because rather different from the stereotypes of England as the solidly Tory part of the Union we've been fed since Brexit.
Always been a myth. Happy to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, the Conservative Party has *never* won even a simple majority in England, led alone being “solidly Tory”.
Brexit was won by a hair’s breadth, which has now totally swung against the xenophobes.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
I can't assess whether this is a reliable poll, but it shows even stronger animus against Russia. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/10/3-in-4-ukrainians-say-russia-is-hostile-state-survey-a75783 Some 72% of Ukrainians say Russia is a “hostile state,” according to new polling conducted amid a tense standoff between the two countries... ...Almost half — 48% — of the respondents said Belarus was a “hostile state,” up from 22% in the previous survey.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Not sure. An 80-seat majority with a large minority perhaps majority of Cons voters either unaware of what's going on apart from more "politics"; or look on Boris still as a great PM as he got Brexit done (100% of a sample of two provincial taxi drivers for example, in this latter category) with Partygate not seen as such an egregious issue.
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
Boris has been a great PM. He got Brexit done, vaccines done, restrictions lifted and avoided over Christmas. He's done the day job well.
However lawmakers can't be law breakers. Not following his own laws is terminal regardless of how good a PM he has been. It is inexcusable and he has to go.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Not sure. An 80-seat majority with a large minority perhaps majority of Cons voters either unaware of what's going on apart from more "politics"; or look on Boris still as a great PM as he got Brexit done (100% of a sample of two provincial taxi drivers for example, in this latter category) with Partygate not seen as such an egregious issue.
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
I don't know if there's anything in it, and I can't find the tweet which I read that suggested it, but might there have been a Chinese hand in Nus Ghani's demotion?
The suggestion was that it may have been related to Gardiner's chum Christine Lee. She, or another not yet revealed, passed on the message to their Tory contacts that Ghani's stance on the Uyghurs wasn't popular among the Chinese expats and any donations would dry up while she was in place.
That would have something to do with her 'Muslimness'.
Appalling if so.
Nus Ghani has been very sound on China's persecution of the Uighurs.
Appalling. But more plausible than the generic claims that she was sacked for her “Muslimness”
Yes, much more believeable. And just as wrong
China is a terrible bully, and it’s not even the Number 1 Superpower yet. Imagine how bad it will get when they are?
I suspect a lot of ranting anti-American wankers on the Left will suddenly start to miss Uncle Sam, tho they will find it hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer than necessary if the balloon goes up?
One chap with initials BJ. It would be the apotheosis of his WC tribute act.
“The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.
The State Department also warned people not to travel to Ukraine and Russia due to the ongoing tension and "potential for harassment against US citizens".
Biden is seriously scarred by the Afghanistan shambles. I think analysts are wrong to read too much into there being specific intel.
I think the chance of Russia fully invading Ukraine is remote, and the chance of significant Russian attacks in eastern Ukraine is much lower than the media hysteria would lead us to believe.
It’s in everyone’s interests to hype this up.
Calm down, people.
Agree; as far as UK is concerned I suspect much of the hype is a diversionary tactic to 'Save Big Dog'!
I think you're both on the wrong end of that.
If Putin is going to ramp up his war on Ukraine, it is rational for him to do it ASAP. Ukraine's defences are not going to get weaker from now on in. And NATO expenditure which turned in 2014 or so, will see some things coming through (slowly).
Plus hard ground for tanks, gas demand reduced in summer etc.
Yes, Putin has a short window of opportunity, a month or so, maybe six weeks at the most before the thaw starts. He’ll also want the maximum pressure on European gas supply to co-incide, just so Germany knows for sure who’s the new king of Europe. There’s an awful lot of anti-tank weaponry and expertise heading to Kiev at the moment, which as you say won’t be getting weaker any time soon.
The FCO sent out a travel advisory for Ukraine at the weekend - essential travel only. Up to that point it was "be careful, have an escape plan, be prepared to get out quickly"
Kyiv is about 110 miles from the northern border. If it were to kick off (and none of us really knows just how likely that is) it wouldn't be possible to evacuate, so this is merely sensible precaution.
At 600mph, that's 11 minutes flying time. Its also within the range of not-especially-big rockets.
And Russia have moved significant forces from the Far East into Belarus for "exercises" in February.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
Churchill was an ex soldier during WW2. Eisenhower was an ex general during the Korean War.
Sunak is a peacetime PM not a wartime PM. If Russia invaded Ukraine and then went beyond that that would be an even bigger wartime escalation than Saddam invading Kuwait given the size of Russia and we would need an experienced hand to manage it.
If Boris went, the Defence Secretary would be the better bet then
I don't know if there's anything in it, and I can't find the tweet which I read that suggested it, but might there have been a Chinese hand in Nus Ghani's demotion?
The suggestion was that it may have been related to Gardiner's chum Christine Lee. She, or another not yet revealed, passed on the message to their Tory contacts that Ghani's stance on the Uyghurs wasn't popular among the Chinese expats and any donations would dry up while she was in place.
That would have something to do with her 'Muslimness'.
Appalling if so.
Nus Ghani has been very sound on China's persecution of the Uighurs.
Appalling. But more plausible than the generic claims that she was sacked for her “Muslimness”
Yes, much more believeable. And just as wrong
China is a terrible bully, and it’s not even the Number 1 Superpower yet. Imagine how bad it will get when they are?
I suspect a lot of ranting anti-American wankers on the Left will suddenly start to miss Uncle Sam, tho they will find it hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance
The people finding it hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance are the ones who voted for Brexit and the Conservatives. The rest have a clean conscience.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires.
Spot on.
There is a lot of past history that suggest having politicians questioning the military is better than the military running everything.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Not sure. An 80-seat majority with a large minority perhaps majority of Cons voters either unaware of what's going on apart from more "politics"; or look on Boris still as a great PM as he got Brexit done (100% of a sample of two provincial taxi drivers for example, in this latter category) with Partygate not seen as such an egregious issue.
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
Boris has been a great PM. He got Brexit done, vaccines done, restrictions lifted and avoided over Christmas. He's done the day job well.
However lawmakers can't be law breakers. Not following his own laws is terminal regardless of how good a PM he has been. It is inexcusable and he has to go.
I'm just not seeing his lawbreaking as being black and white. There will be something inconclusive involving workplace, refreshments, meetings, etc. If it's ok for SKS to have a beer at a constituency meeting then why isn't it ok to buy a suitcase of booze which might end up as one drink per participant.
If he has broken the law demonstrably then yes of course he will have to go but I'm not convinced that will be shown to have happened.
And yes I will keep that above line to roll out when this is resolved one way or another.
I have just had a Sri Lankan curry in the open air restaurant of my hotel overlooking the Indian Ocean (and, less enticingly, the clanking railway from Colombo to Galle)
Fish curry, three vegetable curries, red rice, pickles, chutney, popadom, one cold beer: £5 total
And the sun blazes down
Sri Lanka is absurdly enticing. If you want a break from British winter blues, here it is; and the Covid bureaucracy is minimal
English Labour break into the upper 40s. Klaxons at central office.
England Lab 46% Con 36% LD 10%
Scotland SNP 45% Lab 22% Con 18% LD 9%
Wales Lab 44% Con 29% PC 11% LD 10%
(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)
That's interesting, because rather different from the stereotypes of England as the solidly Tory part of the Union we've been fed since Brexit.
Always been a myth. Happy to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, the Conservative Party has *never* won even a simple majority in England, led alone being “solidly Tory”.
Brexit was won by a hair’s breadth, which has now totally swung against the xenophobes.
The Conservatives have certainly got closer to a majority in England of the vote than Labour has.
Though of course the Conservatives and Unionists did win a majority of the vote in Scotland in 1955
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer than necessary if the balloon goes up?
Does anyone seriously want Big Dog in charge a nanosecond longer?
More accurately expresses the general mood, I think!
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
"mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much."
Well, there are reasons for that. And the fault is not Ukraine, but Russia.
The Ukrainians are facing a situation where they will be unwillingly subsumed (again) into a larger country that has not treated them well in the past. The Holodmor will weigh heavily on people's minds.
Putin has taken more than a muscular stance. He has invaded other countries before, and annexed parts of others. He has murdered using radioactive poisons in the UK. He is developing weapons that (allegedly) pollute the skies with radioactivity - as a by-product (the Petrel).
You should not excuse it by calling it 'muscular'. You should call it what it is: wrong.
Yes, I'm against both Putin and his aggressive policies - I loathe nationalism in all its forms, especially when associated with armed force. But I was trying to give a picture of how I think ordinary Ukranians and Russians mostly think.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
I can't assess whether this is a reliable poll, but it shows even stronger animus against Russia. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/10/3-in-4-ukrainians-say-russia-is-hostile-state-survey-a75783 Some 72% of Ukrainians say Russia is a “hostile state,” according to new polling conducted amid a tense standoff between the two countries... ...Almost half — 48% — of the respondents said Belarus was a “hostile state,” up from 22% in the previous survey.
Funny that.
You invade a country, take a chunk of it, and fund an "insurgency" that largely consists of your army claiming to be on leave and going on holiday in another country....
And the country in question starts thinking you are a bit hostile.
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Heck, young HY!!!! Have you gone off Sunak as well as Johnson? As our favourite PB Tory canary, that is surely highly significant!
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
Whilst your argument carries some weight, there is a simple answer to your initial question: those that know what it is like to be put in harms way are a little less blasé about putting other peoples' sons and daughters in harms way unnecessarily.
It could be argued that had Tony Blair known what it feels like to look down the barrel of a gun, he might have taken a slightly different approach.
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Fantastic document and a lot of work. Absolute must read.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
I don't think the 82 friendly MPs are all guaranteed votes for Boris in a VONC, it's the Tory party here a lot of them will be 2 faced if they think removing Boris won't cost them everything.
Not sure. An 80-seat majority with a large minority perhaps majority of Cons voters either unaware of what's going on apart from more "politics"; or look on Boris still as a great PM as he got Brexit done (100% of a sample of two provincial taxi drivers for example, in this latter category) with Partygate not seen as such an egregious issue.
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
How's the shoulder?
Thanks v much a bit sore and dislocated so weighing up next moves....
English Labour break into the upper 40s. Klaxons at central office.
England Lab 46% Con 36% LD 10%
Scotland SNP 45% Lab 22% Con 18% LD 9%
Wales Lab 44% Con 29% PC 11% LD 10%
(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)
That's interesting, because rather different from the stereotypes of England as the solidly Tory part of the Union we've been fed since Brexit.
Always been a myth. Happy to be corrected, but as far as I am aware, the Conservative Party has *never* won even a simple majority in England, led alone being “solidly Tory”.
Brexit was won by a hair’s breadth, which has now totally swung against the xenophobes.
The Conservatives have certainly got closer to a majority in England of the vote than Labour has.
Though of course the Conservatives and Unionists did win a majority of the vote in Scotland in 1955
The Conservatives and Unionists were not even standing for election in 1955, so impossible to have gained a majority.
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
...On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
Does anyone seriously believe that if Ukraine did not have a substantial army, and was indicating a willingness to fight, that Putin would not already have sent in 'friendly' troops, and have installed a puppet regime ?
Anyone have insight from their Ukrainian friends or colleagues as to whether their military is likely to roll over, Georgia style, as soon as Putin's tanks cross the border or whether they're heading for some Stalingrad-like defence followed by years of bloody trench warfare? I don't get any sense of the mood there - is it fatalistic or defiant? The closest I get is from a Belorussian colleague who has spent the last couple of years head in hands at the misery of it all.
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
My impression is that there is a large, active and determined nationalist movement, ranging politically from centrist to right-wing (even a small neo-Nazi group), but principally vehicles for prominent individual politicians with various degrees of scruple. I'd expect their supporters to resist fiercely, though probably mostly by guerilla action, which is a very long tradition in Ukraine. There's a smallish pro-Russian movement (currently on 12% in the polls), mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much. And there's a large, mostly quiescent body of people who feel it's all tiresome politics, why don't we all get along, God forbid there's a war.
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
"mostly older people who simply identify as Russians who find themselves living in a country whose leaders don't like them very much."
Well, there are reasons for that. And the fault is not Ukraine, but Russia.
The Ukrainians are facing a situation where they will be unwillingly subsumed (again) into a larger country that has not treated them well in the past. The Holodmor will weigh heavily on people's minds.
Putin has taken more than a muscular stance. He has invaded other countries before, and annexed parts of others. He has murdered using radioactive poisons in the UK. He is developing weapons that (allegedly) pollute the skies with radioactivity - as a by-product (the Petrel).
You should not excuse it by calling it 'muscular'. You should call it what it is: wrong.
I find the reflexive minimisation of... issues with Russia by the old left as quite funny. It's not like Putin is exactly left wing anymore. He is running the country on small "f" Fascism......
English Labour break into the upper 40s. Klaxons at central office.
England Lab 46% Con 36% LD 10%
Scotland SNP 45% Lab 22% Con 18% LD 9%
Wales Lab 44% Con 29% PC 11% LD 10%
(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)
36% in England is still higher for the Tories than the 33% they got in 1997 and the 35% they got in 2001 and 2005.
29% in Wales for the Tories is even better than the 27% Cameron's Tories got in Wales in 2015.
18% in Scotland is also better still than the 15% the Conservatives got in Scotland under Cameron in 2015
I just gave you a 'like' which was more an 'admire'. An object lesson in how to make a silk purse out of a sows ear
Have you heard any more news from your brother who has “lived in Amsterdam since he was 20” yet somehow didn’t notice that the entire nation of Holland was on strict lockdown for four weeks from mid December?
Would a leadership election go ahead were Russia to launch the attack on Ukraine?
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars, twice during WWII, Ukraine will not save Boris Johnson.
Yes, but we changed PMs during war when their war strategies had manifestly failed.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Then the Thatcher precedent applies.
If we want a PM in time of war, surely Ben Wallace or Tobias Ellwood would be a better bet than Sunak if Boris goes? Sunak is a peacetime chancellor to do the books.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
Why does it make sense that a former soldier is the best PM in a time of war?
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
Churchill was an ex soldier during WW2. Eisenhower was an ex general during the Korean War.
Sunak is a peacetime PM not a wartime PM. If Russia invaded Ukraine and then went beyond that that would be an even bigger wartime escalation than Saddam invading Kuwait given the size of Russia and we would need an experienced hand to manage it.
If Boris went, the Defence Secretary would be the better bet then
You say an “experienced hand”.
With all due respect to Ben Wallace what experience has he had in organising war? His time in the Scots Guards was spent largely in NI but also Belize, Cyprus, Germany. He left the army in 1998. Not sure what exactly that confers on him in terms of pulling together all-arms, pulling together all gov departments for a war footing etc etc.
The “experience” is in the guys who are in the military currently who know first hand their capabilities and up to date on tactics and equipment which have changed a little bit from 1998. A PM is not saddling up his horse and drawing his sword before leading the troops into battle if there is a war - they need to be sitting in the middle of a huge amount of info and plans and scenarios and make decisions on data and politics. Spending 7 years in an armoured land rover on the falls road or in the jungles of Belize doesn’t necessarily translate to being a war time PM.
I have just had a Sri Lankan curry in the open air restaurant of my hotel overlooking the Indian Ocean (and, less enticingly, the clanking railway from Colombo to Galle)
Fish curry, three vegetable curries, red rice, pickles, chutney, popadom, one cold beer: £5 total
And the sun blazes down
Sri Lanka is absurdly enticing. If you want a break from British winter blues, here it is; and the Covid bureaucracy is minimal
Comments
https://twitter.com/nus_ghani/status/1375335600094646276?s=21
Nus Ghani has been very critical of China over their persecution of the Uighurs. She was one of 3 MPs sanctioned by China for her work on this.
Item 2:
The information about Christine Lee and China's attempts to influence operations in Parliament.
Item 3:
In early 2020 the government was havering over how far to let Huawei continue providing telecoms infrastructure. There was a decision to keep it half involved, a decision widely criticised at the time and only eventually reversed months later.
It might just be worth asking whether one reason why her Muslimness was an issue was because of pressure from China. The Chinese are one of the most Islamophobic governments out there and not at all shy about putting pressure on those who criticise it.
This may not suit those who are rushing to assume that the prejudice must be home-grown - and it may well be that as well - but Nus Ghani has been one of the most vocal MPs speaking up for the Uighurs. So I wonder if it is just a coincidence that she was sacked.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/every-conservative-mps-position-on-boris-johnson-and-the-parties-in-number-10-bc4f5f77032f
Summary: 82 friendly, 92 hostile or "icy", the rest cool, neutral or unknown. Makes a VONC a near-certainty, though not yet a succesful VONC.
Seems remarkable coming from a nurse, who in my experience consider it a real vocation (and put up with dreadful shift patterns etc), but still. It's an attitude that you sense from some BBC staff, teachers and civil servants too.
Wonder if I'm being a bit unreasonable. If that makes me a Tory then... shit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander
What I do know is that the family, business and friendship links between Ukraine and Russia are deep, and the prospect of them being at each others' throats can't be very appealing for those many Russians who know or work with people across the border. But then I suppose the same was true in the former Yugoslavia.
Over the weekend, “Red Wall” Tory Aaron Bell, who was first elected MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme in 2019, became the latest rebel to hand in a letter to the 1922 committee chairman, according to reports.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/23/number-10-police-questioned-sue-gray-downing-street-parties/
Not paywalled.
After all, they managed to give some actual space to Michelle Yeoh to be more than a token in Tomorrow Never Dies
Given the operations disclosed around that bought and paid for MP it is entirely possible that they have worked to undermine Ghani. It would be consistent.
Short of a successful VONC another threshold is will more than 117 vote against him making him more hated than t may. I think that is nearly in the bag.
A regime which sanctions British Parliamentarians would have no hesitation in seeking to get one of them sacked. And, frankly, I can well believe this government falling for such pressure.
I think not.
It is even possible that one would be abandoned and postponed half way through if there was military action.
"Now is not the time etc etc"
Worth bearing in mind if peeps are betting on exit dates.
A pro-Putin chap I know (actually a I-don't-like-him-but...) bangs on about how Ukraine is a made up country and there is no Ukrainian culture or language.
EDIT: If anything, it might make things move quicker, I think.
But she has said she was told it had something to do with her being Muslim. That could be a lie or a misunderstanding or simple prejudice. Or it might be because of her outspokennness on the Uighurs and the upset it caused China and threats of favours not being give. Or a combination of some of these factors. I would not rule out the China factor though I doubt we will get a clear answer.
That wouldn't apply in Ukraine case and certainly not in next six weeks.
If it is over quickly then we might be back to defenestration after May's locals again.
Hope it improves.
I'm not defending them, but I wonder whether there's too much 'shorthand' here.
Ashley Bertie (former Assistant Police Crime Commissioner in West Midlands when Jamieson was the PCC)
Paulette Hamilton (Cllr for Holyhead ward in Birmingham)
Party channels were entirely inappropriate - this was a government matter - and in any event had already been ruled not fit for purpose.
It's entirely clear that no one had any intention of taking the complaint seriously.
"The people deciding to ditch their smartphones
By Suzanne Bearne, Business reporter"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60067032
Explains much around the current Ukraine crisis
https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1485335981377081355?s=20
Zelensky got lots of votes from this group, since he apparently (and I think sincerely) wanted to get to a more or less amicable arrangement: his party sounds pretty appealing with its mild-mannered approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(political_party)). Putin's hostility and domestic nationalist pressures have squeezed him hard and they're down 10 points in the polls to about 14%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election
On the Russian side, I think the majority opinion is that everything has gone to pot in recent years, especially under Yeltsin, and they're fine with Putin taking a muscular stance, but almost nobody actually wants a serious war. Which is why I think it won't happen.
If Russia invaded Ukraine and certainly if it then went beyond Ukraine that impacts on the Tory leadership too
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashley-bertie-b677b277/?originalSubdomain=uk
Paulette seems to work for the local NHS Mental Health trust so probably has similar interests.
Both would add some knowledge to Parliament I think.
In the modern world of expecting customer service, this is very jarring. Hence politicians banging on about "John Lewis" style public service - John Lewis were early in the game (in the UK) of making sure the customer didn't leave the store unhappy as a policy.
See - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751815/
When we had our first child, my wife an I encountered the "natural childbirth" group of midwives in the NHS. They were starkly anti-technology of any kind, to the point they were actually rather worrying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0013wc9
England
Lab 46%
Con 36%
LD 10%
Scotland
SNP 45%
Lab 22%
Con 18%
LD 9%
Wales
Lab 44%
Con 29%
PC 11%
LD 10%
(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)
Now it's perfectly possible that one or other parties are lying here but given the reputation of the current management who do you think is the more likely to be being truthful, the person who knew the excuse was racist or the person who denies saying it.
Why is it that no paid journalist is able to do this? Instead we get Laura Kuennsberg giving us endless contradictory anonymous reports and guesses about where the arithmetic lies.
Well, there are reasons for that. And the fault is not Ukraine, but Russia.
The Ukrainians are facing a situation where they will be unwillingly subsumed (again) into a larger country that has not treated them well in the past. The Holodmor will weigh heavily on people's minds.
Putin has taken more than a muscular stance. He has invaded other countries before, and annexed parts of others. He has murdered using radioactive poisons in the UK. He is developing weapons that (allegedly) pollute the skies with radioactivity - as a by-product (the Petrel).
You should not excuse it by calling it 'muscular'. You should call it what it is: wrong.
This bad: rebel MPs are considering submitting subject access requests to Mark Spencer, the chief whip, so he’d have to hand over messages and emails about them
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/db1dba66-7c9e-11ec-9f29-932be1c8942d?shareToken=95ce63d0415baf1384fa79f26e467b19
If they get rid of him, then they are admitting that their judgement is suspect because they were not only all huge cheerleaders of him, his character, and his Borisness until recently, but they all literally signed up to support him not two-odd years ago.
Reflecting the reality of a multinational state?
Winding up British Nationalists?
Your guess is as good as mine. Ask the BBC.
29% in Wales for the Tories is even better than the 27% Cameron's Tories got in Wales in 2015.
18% in Scotland is also better still than the 15% the Conservatives got in Scotland under Cameron in 2015
Brexit was won by a hair’s breadth, which has now totally swung against the xenophobes.
https://www.iri.org/resource/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support-eunato-membership-concerns-over-economy-and-vaccines-covid
I can't assess whether this is a reliable poll, but it shows even stronger animus against Russia.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/10/3-in-4-ukrainians-say-russia-is-hostile-state-survey-a75783
Some 72% of Ukrainians say Russia is a “hostile state,” according to new polling conducted amid a tense standoff between the two countries...
...Almost half — 48% — of the respondents said Belarus was a “hostile state,” up from 22% in the previous survey.
However lawmakers can't be law breakers. Not following his own laws is terminal regardless of how good a PM he has been. It is inexcusable and he has to go.
Firstly I would rather have someone who doesn’t have their own prejudices developed from their time as a soldier - where their experiences likely have no real bearing on the “current war” and again you have the danger of the man at the top fighting the last war.
Second if military experience is key why not go the whole hog and put the Chief of Defence staff in charge of the country. If this is a silly idea then it also negates why an ex military man would be best leader in time of war.
Third I would rather have someone slightly removed from the military who would be able to listen to multiple points of view - if you have Wallace or Elwood do they have a bias to the Army and therefore not listen to the RAF or Navy views?
Fourth: should we have had an ex-epidemiologist as PM during covid? Didn’t hear much call for that.
Fifth and final: once the war is over do they get shuffled out and then replaced by someone with a background in the current issue of the day? Jamie Oliver to solve any food crisis, Mervin King to deal with inflation, Jeremy Clarkson to deal with Farming? Going to go through a lot of PMs
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10279221/rocket-between-bum-cheeks/
China is a terrible bully, and it’s not even the Number 1 Superpower yet. Imagine how bad it will get when they are?
I suspect a lot of ranting anti-American wankers on the Left will suddenly start to miss Uncle Sam, tho they will find it hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance
Spot on.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/russia-moves-more-troops-westward-amid-ukraine-tensions-20220119-p59pd0.html
Nothing to see here
Sunak is a peacetime PM not a wartime PM. If Russia invaded Ukraine and then went beyond that that would be an even bigger wartime escalation than Saddam invading Kuwait given the size of Russia and we would need an experienced hand to manage it.
If Boris went, the Defence Secretary would be the better bet then
As for “terrible bullying” Sean? Ahem.
If he has broken the law demonstrably then yes of course he will have to go but I'm not convinced that will be shown to have happened.
And yes I will keep that above line to roll out when this is resolved one way or another.
Fish curry, three vegetable curries, red rice, pickles, chutney, popadom, one cold beer: £5 total
And the sun blazes down
Sri Lanka is absurdly enticing. If you want a break from British winter blues, here it is; and the Covid bureaucracy is minimal
Though of course the Conservatives and Unionists did win a majority of the vote in Scotland in 1955
More accurately expresses the general mood, I think!
Boris is still doing better in Scotland and Wales than Cameron did in 2015
The inside of the Tory head is a strange and unpleasant place.
You invade a country, take a chunk of it, and fund an "insurgency" that largely consists of your army claiming to be on leave and going on holiday in another country....
And the country in question starts thinking you are a bit hostile.
It could be argued that had Tony Blair known what it feels like to look down the barrel of a gun, he might have taken a slightly different approach.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/boris-johnson-should-resign-say-four-in-five-scots-as-poll-reveals-downing-street-parties-scandal-hurts-case-for-union-3536052
With all due respect to Ben Wallace what experience has he had in organising war? His time in the Scots Guards was spent largely in NI but also Belize, Cyprus, Germany. He left the army in 1998. Not sure what exactly that confers on him in terms of pulling together all-arms, pulling together all gov departments for a war footing etc etc.
The “experience” is in the guys who are in the military currently who know first hand their capabilities and up to date on tactics and equipment which have changed a little bit from 1998. A PM is not saddling up his horse and drawing his sword before leading the troops into battle if there is a war - they need to be sitting in the middle of a huge amount of info and plans and scenarios and make decisions on data and politics. Spending 7 years in an armoured land rover on the falls road or in the jungles of Belize doesn’t necessarily translate to being a war time PM.
Check out the Daily Star headline
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-60106377