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
Pretty much everyone was an ex-soldier during the second world war, and for some years afterwards, probably up to the mid-1980s. You might even argue that it is non-combatant Prime Ministers who have been keenest on military adventures, from Mrs Thatcher through Major, Blair and Cameron.
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
So obvious that it's amazing backbenchers don't do it as a matter of course, but at the same time brilliant. Another way in which whipping is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era.
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
The Tank Commander is my poster du jour. The lack of self-awareness and ability to edit own posts is breathtaking. Stream of consciousness stuff.
The inside of the Tory head is a strange and unpleasant place.
I imagine it is a far less unpleasant place than that of an ex-pat Scottish Nationalist who thought it amusing to talk about British servicemen returning to "England" (your words) in body bags. HYUFD may make sometimes silly remarks, but it is rare that his prejudice comes anywhere near yours.
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
If Russia goes past Ukraine then the UK won't be "managing" the conflict in any meaningful sense. Biden and SecDef Lloyd Austin (ex four star, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain) will be calling the shots. At that point you might as well have Fabricant as PM for all the difference it will make.
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
He's only got himself to blame. Storming down Downing St yelling at the journalists and photographers ' HE'S AN 'ERO! AN 'ERO' was bound t get him noticed. I wondered at the time about the wisdom of employing such a doting thug
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.
Lawyers deal with evidence and facts.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
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!
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....
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
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.
Lawyers deal with evidence and facts.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
Because that doesn't fit in with the narrative which is that the Tories are struggling and will he/won't he go.
You've raised a very interesting point but it's not on the media's agenda.
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.
In terms of seats the Tories won large overall majorities in England in all 4 elections between 1979 and 1992. But in terms of numbers of votes you are correct.
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.
I would rather have a sensible PM who listens to well-informed advice as to what is possible, sensible or practical from a Defence Secretary.
Though an ex-armed forces type with a wider awareness could be that PM.
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.
It's hardly a surprise, but it does run somewhat counter to the narrative Nick put forward.
Almost impossible to imagine BBC Scotland doing a series called We Are Scotland.
On the general subject, Jeremy Bowen is doing the Welsh section of This Union on R4, hopefully it’s as good as Alan Little’s contribution.
The Welsh trailer was shite.
Is the BBC’s ‘The Social’ not a bit We Are Scotlandish? Certainly reflects my nation surprisingly well at times. Compared to the BritNat propaganda they usually churn out.
If Russia goes past Ukraine then the UK won't be "managing" the conflict in any meaningful sense. Biden and SecDef Lloyd Austin (ex four star, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain) will be calling the shots. At that point you might as well have Fabricant as PM for all the difference it will make.
Is there the slightest suggestion Putin will "go past" Ukraine? He will then be on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania (all NATO members I believe). The next problem would then be Moldova which isn't in NATO but works closely with NATO.
I imagine one of the responses to a Russian invasion and occupation of the Ukraine would be for Moldova to quickly join NATO so we would have a very long frontier between NATO and Russia.
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.
In terms of seats the Tories won large overall majorities in England in all 4 elections between 1979 and 1992. But in terms of numbers of votes you are correct.
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.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make, but the answer to your question is probably no. There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking, but it does not weaken my point about Tony Blair.
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.
Lawyers deal with evidence and facts.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
Read online, traditional journalism. What is missing? Links....
I have long been an advocate of a "wiki" style of journalism - rather than a story you throw over the wall and forget, a story is treated as continuing piece, linked to and linking with other stories in a growing and updated mesh.
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
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....
I'd keep them to a minimum for the time being...
LOL yes good point I managed the kettle this morning so there is some normality!!
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
We can always find individual examples to suit our own argument but I do agree with Nigel's basic premise that having a PM who understands both the reality of war from the sharp end and the limitations of military power might not be a bad thing.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make, but the answer to your question is probably no. There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking, but it does not weaken my point about Tony Blair.
The point I am making is that having ex-military people running things is not necessarily an improvement. Very often the reverse.
"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."
Well, you may be dealing with people trained in a different way - "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."
There is good reason that the government of the UK is always very civilian in character. And it should stay that way.,
"A second factor is the overbearing presence of social media. It used to be the case that teenagers struggling to reconcile themselves with society would retreat to a “sphere of interiority”, a private world of books, bands and friends. The dynamics of social alienation could be painful, but they had the benefit of fostering original characters. Social media offers no respite from social pressure. It reinforces and intensifies the need to conform. Today you have no alternative but to be well-adjusted. One can adjust to the real world or do so virtually on the internet. It would be one thing if youth rebellion had disappeared because all causes for rebellion had been solved. Are there rebels without a cause? Perhaps most social ills and injustices have actually been addressed and the youngest generation were the first to realise we have never lived in a better world. But I think there is a different explanation: youth rebellion was eventually defeated by new and subtler forms of social control. The world is flat not because it is more just, but because it contains fewer places to hide."
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.
Very good work by AM.
We disagreed on many things but he is a great loss to this place.
"A second factor is the overbearing presence of social media. It used to be the case that teenagers struggling to reconcile themselves with society would retreat to a “sphere of interiority”, a private world of books, bands and friends. The dynamics of social alienation could be painful, but they had the benefit of fostering original characters. Social media offers no respite from social pressure. It reinforces and intensifies the need to conform. Today you have no alternative but to be well-adjusted. One can adjust to the real world or do so virtually on the internet. It would be one thing if youth rebellion had disappeared because all causes for rebellion had been solved. Are there rebels without a cause? Perhaps most social ills and injustices have actually been addressed and the youngest generation were the first to realise we have never lived in a better world. But I think there is a different explanation: youth rebellion was eventually defeated by new and subtler forms of social control. The world is flat not because it is more just, but because it contains fewer places to hide."
Another person who has failed to notice that youthful rebellion is always incredibly conformist and extremely unforgiving of any out groups....
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
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.
Well it's a truism to say that 'almost nobody wants a serious war', but that's very far from saying that they wouldn't want to fight if Putin were to invade.
Equally, Putin is likely to take very little notice indeed of popular opinion when deciding whether to gamble on invading (other than seeking to avoid the long term occupation of a hostile nation).
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.
Lawyers deal with evidence and facts.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
Read online, traditional journalism. What is missing? Links....
I have long been an advocate of a "wiki" style of journalism - rather than a story you throw over the wall and forget, a story is treated as continuing piece, linked to and linking with other stories in a growing and updated mesh.
Much like good investigations.
But you need a good memory, the time to do the research, curiosity and a willingness to think more widely about what you are seeing / being told ie a bit of a left-field approach rather than relying on the same sources and simply finding a few facts to fit a preconceived narrative eg as here - Tories are Islamophobes so no need to look further.
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
They're useless at what their job ought to be. Sadly their job has evolved into merely getting clicks.
If Russia goes past Ukraine then the UK won't be "managing" the conflict in any meaningful sense. Biden and SecDef Lloyd Austin (ex four star, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain) will be calling the shots. At that point you might as well have Fabricant as PM for all the difference it will make.
Is there the slightest suggestion Putin will "go past" Ukraine? He will then be on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania (all NATO members I believe). The next problem would then be Moldova which isn't in NATO but works closely with NATO.
I imagine one of the responses to a Russian invasion and occupation of the Ukraine would be for Moldova to quickly join NATO so we would have a very long frontier between NATO and Russia.
Putin is playing a long(ish*) game. He may well want to go past Ukraine. Indeed, why not - was he not personally once stationed in Dresden: why not aim to have Russian soldiers there again one day?
As you point out, the problem - bar Moldova - is NATO so the solution, from his point of view, is to degrade NATO; to render it politically sufficiently dysfunctional as to take it out of the military game. You do that by testing its resolve as well as its capacity - which is what he's doing now. Of course, it's less dangerous to test it with a non-NATO member but precedents matter, as does practice.
But the best way to degrade NATO is at the head: the president of the US, or, if not him, then its internal politics. After the midterms, the Republicans will control Congress and after 2024, they may well control the White House. Biden himself has been ambivalent about what a Russian 'incursion' would mean; Trump is still after his Moscow Hilton.
And with a growing (and, ultimately, greater) strategic threat from China, he might well as why the US should stop Russian troops entering Latvia to protect the one-third Russian population there under attack** and restore order.
* But not that long - he turns 70 this year. Still, there's only so fast he can go practically. ** Obviously, they're not under attack at the moment but it's exactly the sort of incident the Kremlin might provoke to create the justification.
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
It's been unofficial policy for a very long time that it's a bad idea to have ministers who have professional experience of their ministry. The idea being that they'd be too close to a particular factional interest to make really tough decisions. That seems to have broken down a bit at defence but it would seem odd to have a career diplomat as Foreign Secretary or even, dare I say it, an ex teacher as Education Secretary. I know there must be examples of exceptions (Douglas Hurd springs to mind).
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
Pretty much everyone was an ex-soldier during the second world war, and for some years afterwards, probably up to the mid-1980s. You might even argue that it is non-combatant Prime Ministers who have been keenest on military adventures, from Mrs Thatcher through Major, Blair and Cameron.
Service must have an impact.
It certainly did for those who served in WW1 and we throw terms like "appeaser" around but we never experienced trench warfare and I can see why those who did wanted with all their heart and soul not to have to inflict that on another generation.
It's different now because WW2 will be no guide as to WW3 but those in charge know and really know what the impact of nuclear exchange will be on society and humanity let alone the environment.
One of the things from which I draw comfort is most authoritarians such as Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un seem to enjoy the finer things of life - nice clothes, nice food, all the trappings of capitalist wealth. All that disappears as soon as the first missile is fired. Even if they survive in their bunker somewhere, all the life they had will go, perhaps slowly, perhaps quickly, until they are as much victims as the rest of us.
It's that knowledge which I hope has kept the peace and will continue to do so.
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
If Russia goes past Ukraine then the UK won't be "managing" the conflict in any meaningful sense. Biden and SecDef Lloyd Austin (ex four star, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain) will be calling the shots. At that point you might as well have Fabricant as PM for all the difference it will make.
Only if the US goes to war with Russia if Putin invades Estonia, Latvia, Poland or Finland which is not guaranteed.
Otherwise the European Nato members and Turkey would have to lead the response
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
On the topic of bonds, the markets are taking quite the hammering this year. Heavy losses again this morning.
A bear run? A rout? A minor correction? Pick your pundit and get your answer but one thing's sure: there's a huge correction going on.
Yep. Just checked my ex portfolio. I sold my shares at exactly the right time (more from luck than judgement, I should add, I got spooked by Omicron which has turned out to be less nasty than I feared)
I agree with this Header from (appropriately) Q. Laying each & every fancied contender for Next Bond is a good play. It's a great play, in fact, because Bond died in the last film and therefore there can't be a next one.
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.
Lawyers deal with evidence and facts.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
Read online, traditional journalism. What is missing? Links....
I have long been an advocate of a "wiki" style of journalism - rather than a story you throw over the wall and forget, a story is treated as continuing piece, linked to and linking with other stories in a growing and updated mesh.
Much like good investigations.
But you need a good memory, the time to do the research, curiosity and a willingness to think more widely about what you are seeing / being told ie a bit of a left-field approach rather than relying on the same sources and simply finding a few facts to fit a preconceived narrative eg as here - Tories are Islamophobes so no need to look further.
The actual subject of the article doesn't impress me much, but the techniques are interesting.
Put all your data through a data science mill to try and find patterns. Good for boiling down more data than you can hold in the human brain. Especially finding sequences of events in a mess of thousands of things happening.
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
Tried to look her up in the MCB dossier of 300 allegations given to the EHCR in 2020, which resulted in NFA, but her name *would* be a subset of Afghanistan, wouldn't it .
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
If there's any substance I'd expect Baroness Warsi to be on the case any minute now. She's improved enormously since she became unconstrained by government. She was even on a walking in Yorkshire program recently and she was good
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make, but the answer to your question is probably no. There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking, but it does not weaken my point about Tony Blair.
The point I am making is that having ex-military people running things is not necessarily an improvement. Very often the reverse.
"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."
Well, you may be dealing with people trained in a different way - "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."
There is good reason that the government of the UK is always very civilian in character. And it should stay that way.,
And yet the person that most people would argue was the greatest leader we ever had was an ex-serviceman of considerable courage and service record. Besides I think you have misunderstood the context of my original post. It was to rebut the suggestion by the other poster that military experience might be counter productive to a war time PM. While it is good "Devil's advocacy" it is both counter intuitive and against a balanced view of history.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
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.
There was nothing to apologise for - Meeks became very over-wrought and quite abusive at the end.
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
If there's any substance I'd expect Baroness Warsi to be on the case any minute now. She's improved enormously since she became unconstrained by government. She was even on a walking in Yorkshire program recently and she was good
She was already commenting on R4 this morning. An interesting point she made was that complainants were told that any complaint would be 'career ending'.
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!
No but I note Wallace is the only Cabinet Minister alongside Sunak with a net positive approval rating with the public with Yougov.
Wallace is also the only potential Tory leadership contender other than Truss with a higher Conhome rating in its Tory member surveys than Sunak
There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking,
My behaviour on our parish council is a fucking disgrace. 50% Andy Kaufman, 50% Subcomandante Marcos.
“Subcomandante Marcos”!
That’s a memory
Many years ago, on assignment for the Knappers Gazette in Mexico, I was in Chiapas State and I tried for a week to track down the Subcomandante for an interview. I failed miserably. So I consoled myself by buying a Subcomandante Marcos tee-shirt in San Cristobal de Las Casas flea market
Later on that trip I wore the tee-shirt on a fishing expedition out of Cancun. My ironic display of Radical Chic was not appreciated by the Mexican captain, who took one look at it and threatened to throw me overboard. I stood firm, and stared him out. The atmosphere remained tense. We caught no fish
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
This one won't.
Of course Scots voters "inflicted" Gordon Brown on all of us. Thankfully most people outside Scotland are not prejudiced enough to hold this against all Scots.
The PM is determined by Parliament. Scots get MPs. There are more English people, by far, so there are more English constituencies. Not only that, Scotland has both the Barnett[sp] Formula and its own Parliament, whereas England does not.
Of course, if you're out mining for grievances then the evil English imposing a non-Scottish leader is a rich seam, nonsense as it is.
I miss those happy days when leaders came from Yorkshire constituencies. We've had non-Yorkshire MPs imposed on us for decades.
There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking,
My behaviour on our parish council is a fucking disgrace. 50% Andy Kaufman, 50% Subcomandante Marcos.
As an observer or as a councillor? Parish councils are a menace.
A concise digest of my dispatches from the front lines of local politics...
In pb.com electoral news regular viewers of the Dura Ace Show will remember that Mrs DA encouraged me to run for the parish council. I suspect to get me out of the house on an evening. The tory dropped dead during the campaign and the lib dem smelt of piss and had dementia so I was duly elected with a thumping 111 votes on a platform of Eco Anarchism.
I have not attended any meetings or replied to or otherwise acknowledged a single piece of correspondence. That's anarchism.
In grassroots politics news I finally attended a parish council meeting last week. I was unpleasantly and aggressively disruptive until we passed a motion of support for the anarchists of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. 🅐
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
We’re onto ‘a majority of voters didn’t vote for BJ or his version of Brexit’ territory much beloved of #FBPE types, which I may be sympathetic to but don’t find terribly persuasive. English voters elected BJ and gave him a stonking majority, Scottish voters were very much averse to that outcome, those are just facts.
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make, but the answer to your question is probably no. There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking, but it does not weaken my point about Tony Blair.
The point I am making is that having ex-military people running things is not necessarily an improvement. Very often the reverse.
"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."
Well, you may be dealing with people trained in a different way - "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."
There is good reason that the government of the UK is always very civilian in character. And it should stay that way.,
And yet the person that most people would argue was the greatest leader we ever had was an ex-serviceman of considerable courage and service record. Besides I think you have misunderstood the context of my original post. It was to rebut the suggestion by the other poster that military experience might be counter productive to a war time PM. While it is good "Devil's advocacy" it is both counter intuitive and against a balanced view of history.
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.
Very good work by AM.
Indeed it is. Any allowance you make for those on the payroll having to say positive things in public, and that those fancying the job themselves have to be loyal but will surely vote against BJ in the secret vote, and things look bad for the PM.
His immediately prior article makes a different but perceptive point - expect Poland and Hungary to tone down the troublemaking and anti-EU rhetoric and become more pro-west/EU now that Russia is trying to flex its muscles across its former 'empire'.
On the topic of bonds, the markets are taking quite the hammering this year. Heavy losses again this morning.
A bear run? A rout? A minor correction? Pick your pundit and get your answer but one thing's sure: there's a huge correction going on.
My guess would be a reassessment of relative returns.
Inflation taking off seems to have (remarkably, given every economic theory) taken the market by surprise. That must lead to higher interest rates, which in turn will lead to stocks becoming less attractive in terms of their return ratio. There is a risk that such an analysis produces a self-reinforcing cycle, as people sell not only on the need to rebalance but on the expectation that others will do so too and that, of itself, creates a bear market and it's best to get out now and reinvest after the correction.
If Russia goes past Ukraine then the UK won't be "managing" the conflict in any meaningful sense. Biden and SecDef Lloyd Austin (ex four star, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain) will be calling the shots. At that point you might as well have Fabricant as PM for all the difference it will make.
Is there the slightest suggestion Putin will "go past" Ukraine? He will then be on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania (all NATO members I believe). The next problem would then be Moldova which isn't in NATO but works closely with NATO.
I imagine one of the responses to a Russian invasion and occupation of the Ukraine would be for Moldova to quickly join NATO so we would have a very long frontier between NATO and Russia.
Putin is playing a long(ish*) game. He may well want to go past Ukraine. Indeed, why not - was he not personally once stationed in Dresden: why not aim to have Russian soldiers there again one day?
As you point out, the problem - bar Moldova - is NATO so the solution, from his point of view, is to degrade NATO; to render it politically sufficiently dysfunctional as to take it out of the military game. You do that by testing its resolve as well as its capacity - which is what he's doing now. Of course, it's less dangerous to test it with a non-NATO member but precedents matter, as does practice.
But the best way to degrade NATO is at the head: the president of the US, or, if not him, then its internal politics. After the midterms, the Republicans will control Congress and after 2024, they may well control the White House. Biden himself has been ambivalent about what a Russian 'incursion' would mean; Trump is still after his Moscow Hilton.
And with a growing (and, ultimately, greater) strategic threat from China, he might well as why the US should stop Russian troops entering Latvia to protect the one-third Russian population there under attack** and restore order.
* But not that long - he turns 70 this year. Still, there's only so fast he can go practically. ** Obviously, they're not under attack at the moment but it's exactly the sort of incident the Kremlin might provoke to create the justification.
Moldova has certain issues, perhaps?
One is surely that it is formally neutral.
Another is that Transnistria - a separate self-governing place on Moldavian territory on the Ukrainian side of the Dniester river for about 2/3 of the length of the mutual border - has iirc about 1500 Russian troops in it.
That's the sort of issue almost designed to stop them successfully joining NATO.
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”
Her Muslimness seems to have involved her standing up for fellow Muslims being persecuted by an evil state. Good for her!
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
If there's any substance I'd expect Baroness Warsi to be on the case any minute now. She's improved enormously since she became unconstrained by government. She was even on a walking in Yorkshire program recently and she was good
She was interviewed this morning and was suitably critical
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.
There was nothing to apologise for - Meeks became very over-wrought and quite abusive at the end.
Yes. Another utterly clueless remark from dear @Roger
If any apologies are due, they are due from Mr Meeks to the rest of the site. He was quite demented by Brexit at the end (and still flips out on Twitter, on occasion). Foul mouthed, shrill, weird, unfunny.
A terrible shame because, as his Medium posts show, he’s extremely acute and eloquent when he’s not chucking a mental. I wonder if he is earning money for his articles. I hope so, because he is definitely good enough and he should not be giving away these insights for free
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
This is a key point for me.
There's a certain element "I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so" about this. One of the the things that would gladden the unionist part of my heart would be some kind of sign that English politics had somehow learned a lesson. But no, alongside the "everyone thinks Boris should go" is fully one in three people saying they will vote Conservative. As in "if there were an election tomorrow..."
I humbly suggest that anyone who says Boris must go, but states Conservative would be who they would vote for with Boris in charge, need not be taken at their word.
It's an age-old canard of unionism that surveys on issues show a meeting of minds between England and Scotland. It's a tempting argument, but it raises the question of why Scotland and England constantly vote in quite different ways. And the lack of engagement with that question from the unionist side quickens the nationalist part of my heart.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
We’re onto ‘a majority of voters didn’t vote for BJ or his version of Brexit’ territory much beloved of FBPE types, which I may be sympathetic to but don’t find terribly persuasive. English voters elected BJ and gave him a stonking majority, Scottish voters were very much averse to that outcome, those are just facts.
More Scottish voters voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 than for any other Tory leader since Major in 1992, apart from May in 2017
Re. Mr Meeks' piece (see below) and the fact I've mentioned several times, that Johnson has never been popular among his own MPs I'm led to an unfortunate conclusion.
I have a nasty feeling that the tories may have finally learned that past success is no guarantee of a future one. 2019 is already history and, given events dear boy, means nothing now. That red wall intake seem to be particularly on the ball in this regard and less stupidly blue as some duffers of yore.
It's a pity because as a leftie I'd love them to leave the buffoon in place. The only chance the tories have of stemming a rout in 2024 is replacing him with someone competent like Sunak.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
We’re onto ‘a majority of voters didn’t vote for BJ or his version of Brexit’ territory much beloved of FBPE types, which I may be sympathetic to but don’t find terribly persuasive. English voters elected BJ and gave him a stonking majority, Scottish voters were very much averse to that outcome, those are just facts.
Your pretence to not having racist prejudice against the English I don’t find terribly persuasive. It oozes out of every post. Those are just facts. You need to get some therapy.
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.
There was nothing to apologise for - Meeks became very over-wrought and quite abusive at the end.
Yes. Another utterly clueless remark from dear @Roger
If any apologies are due, they are due from Mr Meeks to the rest of the site. He was quite demented by Brexit at the end (and still flips out on Twitter, on occasion). Foul mouthed, shrill, weird, unfunny.
A terrible shame because, as his Medium posts show, he’s extremely acute and eloquent when he’s not chucking a mental. I wonder if he is earning money for his articles. I hope so, because he is definitely good enough and he should not be giving away these insights for free
And you are not demented by Brexit? Pots and kettles old chap!
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.
I see that as a contradiction in terms.
How politics works, you don’t call the vote till you have the numbers. You only vote with the winning side.
There’s no vonc till they have the numbers. This coup sank on unseen unexpected iceberg of strong Boris support.
And the reason the iceberg is there is because this is a contrived attack, Boris is under little pressure on the greater fundamentals of policy and delivery.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
That's interesting but not the way people think. We are lumped together. If France voted for Le Pen they would all be fascists.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
We’re onto ‘a majority of voters didn’t vote for BJ or his version of Brexit’ territory much beloved of FBPE types, which I may be sympathetic to but don’t find terribly persuasive. English voters elected BJ and gave him a stonking majority, Scottish voters were very much averse to that outcome, those are just facts.
More Scottish voters voted for Boris Johnson than any other Tory leader since Major in 1992, apart from May in 2017
More people voted for Howard Gresham Hawkins in 2020 than voted for George Washington
On the topic of bonds, the markets are taking quite the hammering this year. Heavy losses again this morning.
A bear run? A rout? A minor correction? Pick your pundit and get your answer but one thing's sure: there's a huge correction going on.
Yep. Just checked my ex portfolio. I sold my shares at exactly the right time (more from luck than judgement, I should add, I got spooked by Omicron which has turned out to be less nasty than I feared)
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
This is a key point for me.
There's a certain element "I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so" about this. One of the the things that would gladden the unionist part of my heart would be some kind of sign that English politics had somehow learned a lesson. But no, alongside the "everyone thinks Boris should go" is fully one in three people saying they will vote Conservative. As in "if there were an election tomorrow..."
I humbly suggest that anyone who says Boris must go, but states Conservative would be who they would vote for with Boris in charge, need not be taken at their word.
It's an age-old canard of unionism that surveys on issues show a meeting of minds between England and Scotland. It's a tempting argument, but it raises the question of why Scotland and England constantly vote in quite different ways. And the lack of engagement with that question from the unionist side quickens the nationalist part of my heart.
Scots got Holyrood from Blair because they did not vote for Thatcher. Scots already run most of their domestic policy under devolution anyway.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
This one won't.
Of course Scots voters "inflicted" Gordon Brown on all of us. Thankfully most people outside Scotland are not prejudiced enough to hold this against all Scots.
The English/Scottish delta on Johnson is quite stark though. They sussed him, we for some reason didn't. But that 'we' doesn't include me! (Or you tbf.)
There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking,
My behaviour on our parish council is a fucking disgrace. 50% Andy Kaufman, 50% Subcomandante Marcos.
As an observer or as a councillor? Parish councils are a menace.
What's worse is that both parish councils and some members often seem to have delusions about their importance.
If you live in a village, parish councillors are very important in terms of what happens there
Examples needed, I think? A good parish council can make a useful difference at the margins but nothing important is their responsibility.
If a PC objects to a planning application that has been given green light by the planning officer it has to go to committee at district council level. I would say that is quite important. It also has the ability to budget for localised maintenance and also submit proposals to the highways department which may be instrumental in bringing about improvements. It can also raise or reduce precept to build facilities. The idea that parish councils (and town councils that are essentially the same) are unimportant is a misunderstanding.
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.
I see that as a contradiction in terms.
How politics works, you don’t call the vote till you have the numbers. You only vote with the winning side.
There’s no vonc till they have the numbers. This coup sank on unseen unexpected iceberg of strong Boris support.
And the reason the iceberg is there is because this is a contrived attack, Boris is under little pressure on the greater fundamentals of policy and delivery.
The polls and public feedback in themselves are major pressure, I would say. The Red Wall MP's are extremely worried both about what they've been hearing back in their own constituencies and the effect on the national polling.
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.
I see that as a contradiction in terms.
How politics works, you don’t call the vote till you have the numbers. You only vote with the winning side.
There’s no vonc till they have the numbers. This coup sank on unseen unexpected iceberg of strong Boris support.
And the reason the iceberg is there is because this is a contrived attack, Boris is under little pressure on the greater fundamentals of policy and delivery.
Or is he? Boris is probably vulnerable on policy too since the RW mob now despair of seeing much levelling up, and the traditional Tories may be antagonistic to high tax and big state policies. And that is betting without Brexit or Covid.
I agree with this Header from (appropriately) Q. Laying each & every fancied contender for Next Bond is a good play. It's a great play, in fact, because Bond died in the last film and therefore there can't be a next one.
It's a weird one, the cognitive dissonance entailed in watching a James Bond film. I mean, what is the relationship between the British secret agent called James Bond active in the 1950s or 60s, the one active today, and all the ones active in between? They can't be the same person. But if they're different people, isn't it weird that they all have the same name and the same staff ID, but aren't related to each other? The only explanation is that each film or at least each series of films exists in its own self contained universe, in which case Bond could certainly be played by pretty much any man and perhaps even a woman, the only constraint really is that they could plausibly be called James Bond.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
Why should they if they didn't vote for him? Everyone's vote is an individual act for which they have responsibility. If I am on the losing side in a democratic vote then I bear no responsibility for the fact that others thought differently to me.
We’re onto ‘a majority of voters didn’t vote for BJ or his version of Brexit’ territory much beloved of FBPE types, which I may be sympathetic to but don’t find terribly persuasive. English voters elected BJ and gave him a stonking majority, Scottish voters were very much averse to that outcome, those are just facts.
More Scottish voters voted for Boris Johnson than any other Tory leader since Major in 1992, apart from May in 2017
More people voted for Howard Gresham Hawkins in 2020 than voted for George Washington
Yes but that misses the key point, while a lot of Scots hate Boris around a fifth of Scots love him, even now.
Especially Leave voting Scots and Scots who are anti Sturgeon's Covid restrictions
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
Bombs Away with Curt Le May, IIRC the slogan at the time!
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.
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
I am not sure the point you are trying to make, but the answer to your question is probably no. There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking, but it does not weaken my point about Tony Blair.
The point I am making is that having ex-military people running things is not necessarily an improvement. Very often the reverse.
"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."
Well, you may be dealing with people trained in a different way - "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."
There is good reason that the government of the UK is always very civilian in character. And it should stay that way.,
And yet the person that most people would argue was the greatest leader we ever had was an ex-serviceman of considerable courage and service record. Besides I think you have misunderstood the context of my original post. It was to rebut the suggestion by the other poster that military experience might be counter productive to a war time PM. While it is good "Devil's advocacy" it is both counter intuitive and against a balanced view of history.
You are making the classic mistake about Churchill in thinking the greatness of his leadership during WW2 was because he had seen active service however those who really knew Churchill, the real man, would recall that he strongly opined over a pint of 151 proof Bacardi and his favourite Lambert and Butler Light cigarettes that the best preparation and the single biggest education for him that guided his leadership was his time as a journalist. In fact he did say privately that his service experience held back his greatness and the war would have been over in a year if he had focussed on journalism more.
So clearly in Boris we have the new Churchill if war comes.
There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking,
My behaviour on our parish council is a fucking disgrace. 50% Andy Kaufman, 50% Subcomandante Marcos.
“Subcomandante Marcos”!
That’s a memory
Many years ago, on assignment for the Knappers Gazette in Mexico, I was in Chiapas State and I tried for a week to track down the Subcomandante for an interview. I failed miserably. So I consoled myself by buying a Subcomandante Marcos tee-shirt in San Cristobal de Las Casas flea market
Later on that trip I wore the tee-shirt on a fishing expedition out of Cancun. My ironic display of Radical Chic was not appreciated by the Mexican captain, who took one look at it and threatened to throw me overboard. I stood firm, and stared him out. The atmosphere remained tense. We caught no fish
I am reminded of the story of a client was living in the house where some building work was done. He was an un-repentant Stalinist. And free with his opinion. The site manager noticed several Polish workers taking trips to the attic. People who were supposed to be doing ground works (basement). There was a cold water tank in the attic....
He added a complete flushing / cleaning of the water system to the bill, so the story goes....
There are loads of ex servicemen and women and members of the security services who would not be suitable for policymaking,
My behaviour on our parish council is a fucking disgrace. 50% Andy Kaufman, 50% Subcomandante Marcos.
“Subcomandante Marcos”!
That’s a memory
Many years ago, on assignment for the Knappers Gazette in Mexico, I was in Chiapas State and I tried for a week to track down the Subcomandante for an interview. I failed miserably. So I consoled myself by buying a Subcomandante Marcos tee-shirt in San Cristobal de Las Casas flea market
Later on that trip I wore the tee-shirt on a fishing expedition out of Cancun. My ironic display of Radical Chic was not appreciated by the Mexican captain, who took one look at it and threatened to throw me overboard. I stood firm, and stared him out. The atmosphere remained tense. We caught no fish
I hope a jealous sub on the Gazette didn't title your piece "I went to Chiapas looking for a drug dealer but all I got was a T-shirt".
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.
And the reason the iceberg is there is because this is a contrived attack, Boris is under little pressure on the greater fundamentals of policy and delivery.
Disagree. Look at the MP which defected, he'd been in talks since October. The Red-Torys are restless because the 'levelling up' isn't producing anything tangible. and no plans for education or the NHS or pressure on household bills etc etc.
What exactly is Boris and the government doing apart from meaningless sound bites is the question.
Semi serious question. Is it still hurting the Union if 4 in 5 English also agree that he should resign? Seems to me there might be a meeting of minds on this particular issue across the border quite soon.
Depends on how much self reflection is involved. Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
This one won't.
Of course Scots voters "inflicted" Gordon Brown on all of us. Thankfully most people outside Scotland are not prejudiced enough to hold this against all Scots.
The English/Scottish delta on Johnson is quite stark though. They sussed him, we for some reason didn't. But that 'we' doesn't include me! (Or you tbf.)
It's the English class system. Scots can see through it, it's our superpower. The English love a toff, even a fake one like BJ.
Comments
On the general subject, Jeremy Bowen is doing the Welsh section of This Union on R4, hopefully it’s as good as Alan Little’s contribution.
Another way in which whipping is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era.
By the same token why has no journalist picked up on the Ghani - Uighur - sanctioned by China point / possible China influence on the party and even raised this as a possible line of inquiry?
“Real” Tories vote Liz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power
Both men had fought in the front lines - flown the lead bombers in formations, no less, on multiple occasions. The Germans (and Italians) targeted the lead bombers especially because they knew that they carried the commander of the raid. The loss rate was such that later, the Americans moved the raid commanders from the lead bomber.
Would you like either man running foreign policy?
You've raised a very interesting point but it's not on the media's agenda.
Though an ex-armed forces type with a wider awareness could be that PM.
Is the BBC’s ‘The Social’ not a bit We Are Scotlandish? Certainly reflects my nation surprisingly well at times. Compared to the BritNat propaganda they usually churn out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039wndg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/guide/bbcscotland/20220124
I imagine one of the responses to a Russian invasion and occupation of the Ukraine would be for Moldova to quickly join NATO so we would have a very long frontier between NATO and Russia.
I have long been an advocate of a "wiki" style of journalism - rather than a story you throw over the wall and forget, a story is treated as continuing piece, linked to and linking with other stories in a growing and updated mesh.
Whether that was why she was sacked is another matter. The fact that said evil state chose to sanction her is telling.The fact that the same state uses its agents of influence in Parliament as our security services were telling us only a couple of weeks ago is also telling.
Until we know the full contents and context of all the relevant conversations (we may get this) and whether any other influence was indirectly responsible (we won't) we can't say. But I think it a possibility and one which should be followed up.
Questions should be asked. Not least of Ms Ghani herself. Does she think this might have been a factor?
Journalists really are useless at their job.
Scots voters will with some justification tell themselves that they’ve had a total **** inflicted on them by English voters. Will English voters take any modicum of blame for said total **** being where he is?
"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."
Well, you may be dealing with people trained in a different way - "To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."
There is good reason that the government of the UK is always very civilian in character. And it should stay that way.,
"Young people have fallen in love with authority
Youth culture was once rebellious. But in today’s digital world, conformity rules
By Bruno Maçães"
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2022/01/youth-culture-was-once-rebellious-but-in-todays-digital-world-conformity-rules
Quote:
"A second factor is the overbearing presence of social media. It used to be the case that teenagers struggling to reconcile themselves with society would retreat to a “sphere of interiority”, a private world of books, bands and friends. The dynamics of social alienation could be painful, but they had the benefit of fostering original characters. Social media offers no respite from social pressure. It reinforces and intensifies the need to conform. Today you have no alternative but to be well-adjusted. One can adjust to the real world or do so virtually on the internet. It would be one thing if youth rebellion had disappeared because all causes for rebellion had been solved. Are there rebels without a cause? Perhaps most social ills and injustices have actually been addressed and the youngest generation were the first to realise we have never lived in a better world. But I think there is a different explanation: youth rebellion was eventually defeated by new and subtler forms of social control. The world is flat not because it is more just, but because it contains fewer places to hide."
Equally, Putin is likely to take very little notice indeed of popular opinion when deciding whether to gamble on invading (other than seeking to avoid the long term occupation of a hostile nation).
A bear run? A rout? A minor correction? Pick your pundit and get your answer but one thing's sure: there's a huge correction going on.
But you need a good memory, the time to do the research, curiosity and a willingness to think more widely about what you are seeing / being told ie a bit of a left-field approach rather than relying on the same sources and simply finding a few facts to fit a preconceived narrative eg as here - Tories are Islamophobes so no need to look further.
As you point out, the problem - bar Moldova - is NATO so the solution, from his point of view, is to degrade NATO; to render it politically sufficiently dysfunctional as to take it out of the military game. You do that by testing its resolve as well as its capacity - which is what he's doing now. Of course, it's less dangerous to test it with a non-NATO member but precedents matter, as does practice.
But the best way to degrade NATO is at the head: the president of the US, or, if not him, then its internal politics. After the midterms, the Republicans will control Congress and after 2024, they may well control the White House. Biden himself has been ambivalent about what a Russian 'incursion' would mean; Trump is still after his Moscow Hilton.
And with a growing (and, ultimately, greater) strategic threat from China, he might well as why the US should stop Russian troops entering Latvia to protect the one-third Russian population there under attack** and restore order.
* But not that long - he turns 70 this year. Still, there's only so fast he can go practically.
** Obviously, they're not under attack at the moment but it's exactly the sort of incident the Kremlin might provoke to create the justification.
It certainly did for those who served in WW1 and we throw terms like "appeaser" around but we never experienced trench warfare and I can see why those who did wanted with all their heart and soul not to have to inflict that on another generation.
It's different now because WW2 will be no guide as to WW3 but those in charge know and really know what the impact of nuclear exchange will be on society and humanity let alone the environment.
One of the things from which I draw comfort is most authoritarians such as Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un seem to enjoy the finer things of life - nice clothes, nice food, all the trappings of capitalist wealth. All that disappears as soon as the first missile is fired. Even if they survive in their bunker somewhere, all the life they had will go, perhaps slowly, perhaps quickly, until they are as much victims as the rest of us.
It's that knowledge which I hope has kept the peace and will continue to do so.
Otherwise the European Nato members and Turkey would have to lead the response
If I had not sold? And now needed to? Ouch
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/retired-fbi-agent-has-new-theory-about-who-betrayed-anne-franks-family-to-nazis/
The actual subject of the article doesn't impress me much, but the techniques are interesting.
Put all your data through a data science mill to try and find patterns. Good for boiling down more data than you can hold in the human brain. Especially finding sequences of events in a mess of thousands of things happening.
https://mcb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200305-MCB-EHRC-Request-Conservative-Islamophobia.pdf
An interesting point she made was that complainants were told that any complaint would be 'career ending'.
Wallace is also the only potential Tory leadership contender other than Truss with a higher Conhome rating in its Tory member surveys than Sunak
“Subcomandante Marcos”!
That’s a memory
Many years ago, on assignment for the Knappers Gazette in Mexico, I was in Chiapas State and I tried for a week to track down the Subcomandante for an interview. I failed miserably. So I consoled myself by buying a Subcomandante Marcos tee-shirt in San Cristobal de Las Casas flea market
Later on that trip I wore the tee-shirt on a fishing expedition out of Cancun. My ironic display of Radical Chic was not appreciated by the Mexican captain, who took one look at it and threatened to throw me overboard. I stood firm, and stared him out. The atmosphere remained tense. We caught no fish
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10434787/Partygate-stormclouds-gather-Boris-ahead-Sue-Gray-report.html
The PM is determined by Parliament. Scots get MPs. There are more English people, by far, so there are more English constituencies. Not only that, Scotland has both the Barnett[sp] Formula and its own Parliament, whereas England does not.
Of course, if you're out mining for grievances then the evil English imposing a non-Scottish leader is a rich seam, nonsense as it is.
I miss those happy days when leaders came from Yorkshire constituencies. We've had non-Yorkshire MPs imposed on us for decades.
In pb.com electoral news regular viewers of the Dura Ace Show will remember that Mrs DA encouraged me to run for the parish council. I suspect to get me out of the house on an evening. The tory dropped dead during the campaign and the lib dem smelt of piss and had dementia so I was duly elected with a thumping 111 votes on a platform of Eco Anarchism.
I have not attended any meetings or replied to or otherwise acknowledged a single piece of correspondence. That's anarchism.
In grassroots politics news I finally attended a parish council meeting last week. I was unpleasantly and aggressively disruptive until we passed a motion of support for the anarchists of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. 🅐
His immediately prior article makes a different but perceptive point - expect Poland and Hungary to tone down the troublemaking and anti-EU rhetoric and become more pro-west/EU now that Russia is trying to flex its muscles across its former 'empire'.
Inflation taking off seems to have (remarkably, given every economic theory) taken the market by surprise. That must lead to higher interest rates, which in turn will lead to stocks becoming less attractive in terms of their return ratio. There is a risk that such an analysis produces a self-reinforcing cycle, as people sell not only on the need to rebalance but on the expectation that others will do so too and that, of itself, creates a bear market and it's best to get out now and reinvest after the correction.
One is surely that it is formally neutral.
Another is that Transnistria - a separate self-governing place on Moldavian territory on the Ukrainian side of the Dniester river for about 2/3 of the length of the mutual border - has iirc about 1500 Russian troops in it.
That's the sort of issue almost designed to stop them successfully joining NATO.
If any apologies are due, they are due from Mr Meeks to the rest of the site. He was quite demented by Brexit at the end (and still flips out on Twitter, on occasion). Foul mouthed, shrill, weird, unfunny.
A terrible shame because, as his Medium posts show, he’s extremely acute and eloquent when he’s not chucking a mental. I wonder if he is earning money for his articles. I hope so, because he is definitely good enough and he should not be giving away these insights for free
There's a certain element "I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so" about this. One of the the things that would gladden the unionist part of my heart would be some kind of sign that English politics had somehow learned a lesson. But no, alongside the "everyone thinks Boris should go" is fully one in three people saying they will vote Conservative. As in "if there were an election tomorrow..."
I humbly suggest that anyone who says Boris must go, but states Conservative would be who they would vote for with Boris in charge, need not be taken at their word.
It's an age-old canard of unionism that surveys on issues show a meeting of minds between England and Scotland. It's a tempting argument, but it raises the question of why Scotland and England constantly vote in quite different ways. And the lack of engagement with that question from the unionist side quickens the nationalist part of my heart.
I have a nasty feeling that the tories may have finally learned that past success is no guarantee of a future one. 2019 is already history and, given events dear boy, means nothing now. That red wall intake seem to be particularly on the ball in this regard and less stupidly blue as some duffers of yore.
It's a pity because as a leftie I'd love them to leave the buffoon in place. The only chance the tories have of stemming a rout in 2024 is replacing him with someone competent like Sunak.
I could have done a lot worse, I could have invested in crypto “currencies”, which are mostly in free fall.
How politics works, you don’t call the vote till you have the numbers. You only vote with the winning side.
There’s no vonc till they have the numbers. This coup sank on unseen unexpected iceberg of strong Boris support.
And the reason the iceberg is there is because this is a contrived attack, Boris is under little pressure on the greater fundamentals of policy and delivery.
Especially Leave voting Scots and Scots who are anti Sturgeon's Covid restrictions
So clearly in Boris we have the new Churchill if war comes.
He added a complete flushing / cleaning of the water system to the bill, so the story goes....
What exactly is Boris and the government doing apart from meaningless sound bites is the question.