EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
Thousands of body bags arriving at RAF Lyneham. (Which is in Wiltshire. Which is in England. Quick geography lesson for mendacious BritNat Nige.)
You are a very very sick bastard. If there were any proof needed that many Scots Nats are nasty and unpleasant wankers then your posts like this (and particularly the previous one on this subject where you seemed to think this could be a topic of amusement) certainly provide it.
I could not agree more
He is not representative of the Scottish people, just bigoted and anti English
Nonsense.
I’m an Anglophile. Very pro-England and her people.
What I’m opposed to is British Nationalism, which is rampant on these threads. Shame on you Big G for joining in their chorus.
I do not accept your observations and you do post some extraordinarily bitter posts that do not reflect the generosity of the Scots
And you take this observation from a blog with some of the most extraordinarily bitter posts about Scots ever witnessed in social media?
In the circumstances I am remarkably generous, composed and restrained. I deserve a little credit surely?
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
The only conclusion I draw from that little outburst is that you're hysterically unable to read - or understand - or remember. Not sure which.
But if you really feel that's the only way you can defend the prime minister, you'd better carry on with it.
I've called repeatedly for months now for Boris to go. So not defending him.
But you're the one claiming there was a looming catastrophe were you not? You were extremely rude to me and others claiming we didn't understand exponential growth, simply because we disagreed with you.
The simple fact is that if the rate of exponential growth in infections that we saw in early- to mid-December had continued as it was, the health service and probably much of our other infrastructure would have collapsed around the New Year. And given the data, there was no reason to expect the growth rate would drop until well beyond that point.
Fortunately the growth rate did suddenly drop. I don't believe anyone understands why. And I don't think people like you predicted it would drop. I think you just repeated the mantra "Infections don't matter any more".
As it is, I always made it perfectly clear what assumptions I was making. People like you just said there shouldn't be any restrictions, and that everything would be fine, and that infections were meaningless, and so on and so forth.
And of course you're going to claim now that facts have proved you were right all along and everyone else was hysterical and unreasonable. But just because a 100-1 outsider comes in, that doesn't mean the reckless gambler who staked his life savings on it was right all along. Quite the opposite.
Surprised at the likes on this post.
Bart is right: you were insulting to those who disagreed with you. "Stupid", was your epithet of choice as I recall.
Now you are trying to rewrite history – again.
100-1 outsider. FFS, the South Africans had already told us that Milder was 1-3 odds-on favourite.
You ignored them. Others did not.
Yep. Chris has been proved consistently wrong on all his claims related to the threat of Covid over the past year or more and has never once been willing to admit he got it wrong. All he does is repeat the same old idiocy and then once he is shown to be wrong, lie about what he said.
What specifically was Chris wrong about?
He said there would be 800k cases/day. There weren't, as far as I am aware.
I questioned this point before. I understand his prediction was 800,000 infections per day. And I wasn't able to work out how many there actually were. I can see from Zoe that total infections peaked a couple of weeks ago at about 2.8 million, but I don't see any day-by-day new cases data. So I'm unclear how good a prediction that was.
I am not entirely sure I know the difference between infections and cases because if we know about the former don't they automatically become the latter?
But whichever it was he was wrong.
Not everyone gets tested and many cases are asymptomatic, or so mild that people don't realise they have covid, especially after vaccination. No one has ever claimed that the reported positive tests = 100% of the new infections.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
All talk. No action.
What a great pal the Yookay is. You poke and poke and poke Russia with a shitty stick and then act all surprised when she lifts her lip. Feel sorry for Ukraine being used as a bone.
I said earlier that England's response to Covid is a mixed bag. But I'd argue that one's opinion of "which country has done best?" is mediated by personal experience.
So if, for example, you have close friends and/or family who have died from Covid, you'd probably wish we were more like New Zealand. But if you've been largely unaffected by the disease, you probably think we've done fine.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
I am if we are going in with a credible team, not on our own.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
The only conclusion I draw from that little outburst is that you're hysterically unable to read - or understand - or remember. Not sure which.
But if you really feel that's the only way you can defend the prime minister, you'd better carry on with it.
I've called repeatedly for months now for Boris to go. So not defending him.
But you're the one claiming there was a looming catastrophe were you not? You were extremely rude to me and others claiming we didn't understand exponential growth, simply because we disagreed with you.
The simple fact is that if the rate of exponential growth in infections that we saw in early- to mid-December had continued as it was, the health service and probably much of our other infrastructure would have collapsed around the New Year. And given the data, there was no reason to expect the growth rate would drop until well beyond that point.
Fortunately the growth rate did suddenly drop. I don't believe anyone understands why. And I don't think people like you predicted it would drop. I think you just repeated the mantra "Infections don't matter any more".
As it is, I always made it perfectly clear what assumptions I was making. People like you just said there shouldn't be any restrictions, and that everything would be fine, and that infections were meaningless, and so on and so forth.
And of course you're going to claim now that facts have proved you were right all along and everyone else was hysterical and unreasonable. But just because a 100-1 outsider comes in, that doesn't mean the reckless gambler who staked his life savings on it was right all along. Quite the opposite.
Surprised at the likes on this post.
Bart is right: you were insulting to those who disagreed with you. "Stupid", was your epithet of choice as I recall.
Now you are trying to rewrite history – again.
100-1 outsider. FFS, the South Africans had already told us that Milder was 1-3 odds-on favourite.
You ignored them. Others did not.
Yep. Chris has been proved consistently wrong on all his claims related to the threat of Covid over the past year or more and has never once been willing to admit he got it wrong. All he does is repeat the same old idiocy and then once he is shown to be wrong, lie about what he said.
What specifically was Chris wrong about?
He said there would be 800k cases/day. There weren't, as far as I am aware.
I questioned this point before. I understand his prediction was 800,000 infections per day. And I wasn't able to work out how many there actually were. I can see from Zoe that total infections peaked a couple of weeks ago at about 2.8 million, but I don't see any day-by-day new cases data. So I'm unclear how good a prediction that was.
I am not entirely sure I know the difference between infections and cases because if we know about the former don't they automatically become the latter?
But whichever it was he was wrong.
Not everyone gets tested and many cases are asymptomatic, or so mild that people don't realise they have covid, especially after vaccination. No one has ever claimed that the reported positive tests = 100% of the new infections.
Indeed - the ONS numbers (from anti-body surveys) )strongly suggest that we never got close to finding 50% of the actual infections. As you say, probably symptoms to mild or cold like for people to test.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
I am if we are going in with a credible team, not on our own.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Yes, it's true that it's the road not taken, I could see Blair doing it in his very Blair way. I don't think Statmer has the stones to tell his party to shut the fuck up while he allows a VC expert to spend £4bn of public money on vaccines from private companies, many of which the VC person will have strong links to. The Labour party that could do that is dead an buried, sadly.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
A Far-Away Country ... of Which We Know Nothing
The behaviour of the Russian military in Chechnya (and previous behaviour in Ukraine) strongly suggests that their behaviour will be somewhat eyebrow raising. Maybe even a strong tut-tut will be required.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
All talk. No action.
What a great pal the Yookay is. You poke and poke and poke Russia with a shitty stick and then act all surprised when she lifts her lip. Feel sorry for Ukraine being used as a bone.
My daughter in law and her family are from Ukraine
You seem to try to excuse Russia threatening a sovereign country which if allowed will then see Russia cast her eye towards the Baltic states, Finland and even Sweden where you live
Of all people I would have expected you to support Ukraine
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
"the majority of scots were wrong". Good, and they apparently think you are wrong. Which does make nippie's point for her that people north of the wall support what she is doing and want more of that and less of what you and Peppa are doing.
Its like the people making comments like Arden showing a "lack of leadership" because of her clear policies which people in her country agree with. I fundamentally disagree with America backing the rights of people who shoot small children in their classrooms over the right of the children not to be murdered, but as its not my country or my society what does it matter what I think?
Which is why I have long said that Scotland should be an independent country.
Yes Ardern and Sturgeon are bad leaders, but if they're who those nations wish to be led by, that should be their choice not mine.
So your "the majority of Scots are wrong" comment is absurd. They might be from your perspective. But your perspective doesn't matter in this case as it doesn't for NZ. People get what they vote for, and Sturgeon just won a 4th election on the bounce on a record turnout and a record vote for her party. She absolutely does have the democratic mandate and the polls show a much wider support for her actions than just those SNP voters.
Blair got a stonking majority and then took us to war in Iraq. Mandate != Correct.
SNP support is slightly cultish at times; people seen to drop their general suspicion of politicians, and this can lead to stuff like the Salmond mess - "indyref(2) is too important to worry about stuff like that".
Beware the zeal of the convert (Though you did move to a Tory part of Scotland, which should help).
I don't support the SNP or independence - I've said that often enough. But I am a democrat and a long-standing promoter of you get what you vote for. And a record party vote in a record turnout to elect a 4th term is a massive electoral mandate. Especially in a system explicitly designed to prevent majority government.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
Thousands of body bags arriving at RAF Lyneham. (Which is in Wiltshire. Which is in England. Quick geography lesson for mendacious BritNat Nige.)
You are a very very sick bastard. If there were any proof needed that many Scots Nats are nasty and unpleasant wankers then your posts like this (and particularly the previous one on this subject where you seemed to think this could be a topic of amusement) certainly provide it.
I could not agree more
He is not representative of the Scottish people, just bigoted and anti English
Nonsense.
I’m an Anglophile. Very pro-England and her people.
What I’m opposed to is British Nationalism, which is rampant on these threads. Shame on you Big G for joining in their chorus.
Rubbish. I have never once seen you say anything that was not highly critical of the English. And usually in the most crass and ignorant manner as well.
It is slightly Jews/Israel, the kind of conflation that got Corbyn into a mess.
The greatest achievement of the SNP is cementing a distinction between "Westminster" and "the English".
No doubt supported by numerous English* SNP members.
*people originally from England who now live in Scotland.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
So, the United States of Europe was another Leave lie?
Nope that was and still is the aim. The fact that they are fighting like rats in a sack over their own vested interests doesn't change the ultimate aim of the EU.
Only amongst a minority of EU zealots . It was a card that was well played by Leave, but no-one in Europe really believes in it. They might say it, but there will never be a majority in France particularly, but any other nation in the 27 for that matter, to be subsumed by an EU super state. It is never going to happen.
It has been inevitable since the introduction of the Euro.
Indeed, fiscal policy, monetary policy and interest rates. Everything else except war is local government.
@Nigel_Foremain is right that the French will always keep their French identity, but then Texans have always kept their Texan identity too.
The Euro does indeed mean that the evolution to a United States of Europe of some kind or another is inevitable. How swiftly that will happen and how many salami slices will take us there is another question. The ratchetting to a USE is likely to evolve over generations and not be a single discrete step.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
German self interest........Hooray........!
British self interest......white Brexiteer nationalist racists.....!
BREAKING @William_Wragg met a Scotland Yard detective this morning to discuss claims of threats and blackmail of backbenchers by the whips and No 10. Wragg told me: “I have left matters with them. I’m afraid I can’t say anymore at this stage.” Whips sources deny the claims. https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1485612894431625222
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
The only conclusion I draw from that little outburst is that you're hysterically unable to read - or understand - or remember. Not sure which.
But if you really feel that's the only way you can defend the prime minister, you'd better carry on with it.
I've called repeatedly for months now for Boris to go. So not defending him.
But you're the one claiming there was a looming catastrophe were you not? You were extremely rude to me and others claiming we didn't understand exponential growth, simply because we disagreed with you.
The simple fact is that if the rate of exponential growth in infections that we saw in early- to mid-December had continued as it was, the health service and probably much of our other infrastructure would have collapsed around the New Year. And given the data, there was no reason to expect the growth rate would drop until well beyond that point.
Fortunately the growth rate did suddenly drop. I don't believe anyone understands why. And I don't think people like you predicted it would drop. I think you just repeated the mantra "Infections don't matter any more".
As it is, I always made it perfectly clear what assumptions I was making. People like you just said there shouldn't be any restrictions, and that everything would be fine, and that infections were meaningless, and so on and so forth.
And of course you're going to claim now that facts have proved you were right all along and everyone else was hysterical and unreasonable. But just because a 100-1 outsider comes in, that doesn't mean the reckless gambler who staked his life savings on it was right all along. Quite the opposite.
Surprised at the likes on this post.
Bart is right: you were insulting to those who disagreed with you. "Stupid", was your epithet of choice as I recall.
Now you are trying to rewrite history – again.
100-1 outsider. FFS, the South Africans had already told us that Milder was 1-3 odds-on favourite.
You ignored them. Others did not.
Yep. Chris has been proved consistently wrong on all his claims related to the threat of Covid over the past year or more and has never once been willing to admit he got it wrong. All he does is repeat the same old idiocy and then once he is shown to be wrong, lie about what he said.
What specifically was Chris wrong about?
He said there would be 800k cases/day. There weren't, as far as I am aware.
I questioned this point before. I understand his prediction was 800,000 infections per day. And I wasn't able to work out how many there actually were. I can see from Zoe that total infections peaked a couple of weeks ago at about 2.8 million, but I don't see any day-by-day new cases data. So I'm unclear how good a prediction that was.
I am not entirely sure I know the difference between infections and cases because if we know about the former don't they automatically become the latter?
But whichever it was he was wrong.
Not everyone gets tested and many cases are asymptomatic, or so mild that people don't realise they have covid, especially after vaccination. No one has ever claimed that the reported positive tests = 100% of the new infections.
Yes, infections are higher than cases. There must be a good estimate of this somewhere, I'd have thought.
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Would drinking to excess in the office have been a problem, had we not had a once in a century pandemic that meant pubs were shut and people were locked down in homes?
Sky News have picked up the Mail's leader that Downing St police have given "extremely damning" evidence to Sue Gray.
Well I'm happy if that's true but how the blazers does anyone know this? How would that have leaked? Serious question.
Indeed. As has been noted as well a lot of the comments about what Grays findings may be are either made up expectations management or implicit accusation she is corrupt and leaking details.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
All talk. No action.
What a great pal the Yookay is. You poke and poke and poke Russia with a shitty stick and then act all surprised when she lifts her lip. Feel sorry for Ukraine being used as a bone.
My daughter in law and her family are from Ukraine
You seem to try to excuse Russia threatening a sovereign country which if allowed will then see Russia cast her eye towards the Baltic states, Finland and even Sweden where you live
Of all people I would have expected you to support Ukraine
He is probably afraid that Putin won't succeed. Without direct military intervention in terms of NATO forces, an unsuccessful war in Ukraine will be very hard for Putin to shrug off and blame on "The West"
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots, not to please random unqualified Tories with wild epidemiology theories on an obscure blog.
"Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots". Hmm. Maybe. Particularly if you conflate interests of Scots with interests of SNP.
I think what she has done is very astutely understand that Scots like the idea of themselves being more prudent and cautious than those that live to the south. She has therefore sought to differentiate the ScotGov approach by always appearing to be more cautious than the UK, while in practice shadowing it. It's a sensible political approach as there is no real downside, but has little to do with the actualite of the pandemic, and certainly takes no account of the economic consequences, something which, in any event, is of little interest to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure that everyone understands this thing called democracy. They just won a 4th term with their biggest ever vote tally in the biggest ever turnout. If nippie wasn't seen to be governing in the best interests of the nation that would not have happened...
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. .
Sadly that's not really true. We were fast out of the blocks then lagged especially on boosters. We were bloody awful on those, dilly dallying around when we should have got on with them.
The meme Boris likes to tell about how brilliant he has been over covid is the usual mixture of quarter truths, embellishment and downright lies.
who was better in your eyes?
Israel. All the way and on every step.
UAE and Singapore too.
We were also piss-poor on child vaccinations but that's more of a debatable point i.e. whether you believe they should be jabbed.
Because a child is also a vector ('kill your granny') the measurement that matters is % vaccinated of the whole population. We've done not badly at all on that but still lagged on boosters and children.
Even now we should be pulling our finger out and preparing for 4th jabs.
Cookie's point doesn't hold up. If we'd 3rd jabbed three months sooner we could have avoided the recent Plan B and ridden out the storm
I’m in UAE. We are still wearing masks outside the house, restaurants are not at full capacity, large events have vaccine passports, as do malls and restaurants in some areas. There are internal borders checking tests and vaccinations, some schools are still running on Teams and Zoom.
England is up there with Florida and Texas, at being the first places actually getting rid of the vast majority of the pandemic restrictions, and accepting that the virus is now endemic.
Add Sri Lanka. Masks in shops - and that’s it
Otherwise the pandemic has disappeared (touch wood)
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
I said earlier that England's response to Covid is a mixed bag. But I'd argue that one's opinion of "which country has done best?" is mediated by personal experience.
So if, for example, you have close friends and/or family who have died from Covid, you'd probably wish we were more like New Zealand. But if you've been largely unaffected by the disease, you probably think we've done fine.
I think thats a really good point. I only know one person who has died of covid (in his late eighties, and sadly a vaccine skeptic, who spent some of his last months on earth campaigning against vaccinating schoolchildren). None of my family and friends have been badly affected. So for me, the pandemic has been all about the effects of the response, not the disease itself, and surprise, surprise, I'm a hawk on getting things open again.
I have huge sympathy for those who have died and lost people. I hope that the inquiry(ies) will give them some solace, but I doubt it. Those who are now in the Covid Justice group, or whatever its called, have almost certainly made their minds up as to what went wrong and who was to blame.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
German self interest........Hooray........!
British self interest......white Brexiteer nationalist racists.....!
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
As you will remember, within the last few years Putin has killed on our shores, using radioactive substances. True, it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived, but just because he's not a 'despot intent on conquering western Europe' does not mean that he could not be equally evil in other ways.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots, not to please random unqualified Tories with wild epidemiology theories on an obscure blog.
"Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots". Hmm. Maybe. Particularly if you conflate interests of Scots with interests of SNP.
I think what she has done is very astutely understand that Scots like the idea of themselves being more prudent and cautious than those that live to the south. She has therefore sought to differentiate the ScotGov approach by always appearing to be more cautious than the UK, while in practice shadowing it. It's a sensible political approach as there is no real downside, but has little to do with the actualite of the pandemic, and certainly takes no account of the economic consequences, something which, in any event, is of little interest to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure that everyone understands this thing called democracy. They just won a 4th term with their biggest ever vote tally in the biggest ever turnout. If nippie wasn't seen to be governing in the best interests of the nation that would not have happened...
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
And 3 months ago Boris was popular, and won England with a higher vote share than Nippy achieved for the SNP in Scotland.
Popular and right are not always the same thing. If you have principles and you can say "this is wrong" even when its popular, then stand by your principles.
Sky News have picked up the Mail's leader that Downing St police have given "extremely damning" evidence to Sue Gray.
Well I'm happy if that's true but how the blazers does anyone know this? How would that have leaked? Serious question.
Indeed. As has been noted as well a lot of the comments about what Grays findings may be are either made up expectations management or implicit accusation she is corrupt and leaking details.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
A Far-Away Country ... of Which We Know Nothing
The latest Simon Jenkins article is very much in that mould. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/24/autonomy-eastern-ukraine-crisis-nato-russia-minsk ...All evidence suggests that Vladimir Putin wants a regime in Kyiv favourable to Russian interests, much as Soviet leaders wanted in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The west wisely did not argue or intervene on either of those occasions. Russia’s motives today seem much the same....
The casual dismissal of the immiseration of Eastern Europe lasting a couple of generations is quite something. The difference now is that Ukraine is a fully independent state, and has no desire to be traded away in this manner.
Sky News have picked up the Mail's leader that Downing St police have given "extremely damning" evidence to Sue Gray.
Well I'm happy if that's true but how the blazers does anyone know this? How would that have leaked? Serious question.
Indeed. As has been noted as well a lot of the comments about what Grays findings may be are either made up expectations management or implicit accusation she is corrupt and leaking details.
Leaking what you are thinking or may be determining during an investigation shouldn't need to be in the terms of reference!
The findings being public is a reemphasis of that, since leaking partial findings would be most improper and misleading.
The Chilcot Inquiry collected most of its evidence in public sessions.
A public inquiry is not the same thing. Surely you dont think every investigation on any matter, big and small, confidential or non sensitive, is conducted like the live blog of a cricket match? If its not an explicitly public thing by its nature then things need to conclude before they are released.
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Would drinking to excess in the office have been a problem, had we not had a once in a century pandemic that meant pubs were shut and people were locked down in homes?
Hell no.
And where is the evidence of "to excess" by the way?
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
German self interest........Hooray........!
British self interest......white Brexiteer nationalist racists.....!
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Would drinking to excess in the office have been a problem, had we not had a once in a century pandemic that meant pubs were shut and people were locked down in homes?
Hell no.
And where is the evidence of "to excess" by the way?
Surprised you should say that. "I didn't get pished" didn't get people off under the covid legislation.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
German self interest........Hooray........!
British self interest......white Brexiteer nationalist racists.....!
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
I am if we are going in with a credible team, not on our own.
I am - European security is our security, after all
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Don't disagree with that.
But with say the Gordon Brown incident, it's ridiculous IMO to expect a prime minister to resign over something an aide did, which he didn't know about, and which he would have stopped, had he known about it. If evidence had come to light that Mcbride had the okay from Gordon, then yes, fair enough - resignation time.
With the parties, if they were somehow happening without Johnson's knowledge, well you can't really expect him to resign. There may well have been parties at other departments, but wouldn't expect Johnson to resign over that.
But the fact that he attended them, approved of them, resisted efforts to stop them/tell him that they were a bad idea... well that's where it becomes damning for me.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
I expect a reduced Labour lead today with Redfield and Wilton of about 10% as the storm slowly blows over.
I can see Johnson lasting at least another 6-11 months.
Storm slowly blowing over talk is just silly given that we are only on the way in at the moment. Unless you expect Gray to be a damp squib and I don't see how that works because it requires her finding nothing to see here move along, and everybody meekly accepting that.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
Dated 2011. The Russian annexation of Crimea was 2014. I seem to remember that order wasn't fully completed because exports were blocked in 2014.
So, did Germany actually export any arms to Russia after they annexed Crimea in 2014?
Russian troops invaded Georgia in 2008. They were in Moldova by 1992 (arguably 1990).
Yes, of course, and I have campaigned against German arms exports since I have been in Germany.
My question is whether it is accurate that Germany has exported to Russia since Crimea? I have read it a few times on here, but can't find anything to support it.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
So, the United States of Europe was another Leave lie?
Nope that was and still is the aim. The fact that they are fighting like rats in a sack over their own vested interests doesn't change the ultimate aim of the EU.
Only amongst a minority of EU zealots . It was a card that was well played by Leave, but no-one in Europe really believes in it. They might say it, but there will never be a majority in France particularly, but any other nation in the 27 for that matter, to be subsumed by an EU super state. It is never going to happen.
It has been inevitable since the introduction of the Euro.
There is no such thing as "inevitable" in politics. There are always choices.
I do hope our dear leader is about to find the limit of that doctrine
I expect a reduced Labour lead today with Redfield and Wilton of about 10% as the storm slowly blows over.
I can see Johnson lasting at least another 6-11 months.
Storm slowly blowing over talk is just silly given that we are only on the way in at the moment. Unless you expect Gray to be a damp squib and I don't see how that works because it requires her finding nothing to see here move along, and everybody meekly accepting that.
Idk, I feel like taking down a leader, who is also PM, requires a bit of a rush of blood, an emotional reaction if to get beyond usual malcontents. My worry is the more time they have to ponder on what to do, the easier it will be to justify 'one last chance' even if there is more meat in the report.
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Don't disagree with that.
But with say the Gordon Brown incident, it's ridiculous IMO to expect a prime minister to resign over something an aide did, which he didn't know about, and which he would have stopped, had he known about it. If evidence had come to light that Mcbride had the okay from Gordon, then yes, fair enough - resignation time.
With the parties, if they were somehow happening without Johnson's knowledge, well you can't really expect him to resign. There may well have been parties at other departments, but wouldn't expect Johnson to resign over that.
But the fact that he attended them, approved of them, resisted efforts to stop them/tell him that they were a bad idea... well that's where it becomes damning for me.
And the furious lying about them - while accepting the resignation of Stratton for getting caught on camera talking about them.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots, not to please random unqualified Tories with wild epidemiology theories on an obscure blog.
"Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots". Hmm. Maybe. Particularly if you conflate interests of Scots with interests of SNP.
I think what she has done is very astutely understand that Scots like the idea of themselves being more prudent and cautious than those that live to the south. She has therefore sought to differentiate the ScotGov approach by always appearing to be more cautious than the UK, while in practice shadowing it. It's a sensible political approach as there is no real downside, but has little to do with the actualite of the pandemic, and certainly takes no account of the economic consequences, something which, in any event, is of little interest to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure that everyone understands this thing called democracy. They just won a 4th term with their biggest ever vote tally in the biggest ever turnout. If nippie wasn't seen to be governing in the best interests of the nation that would not have happened...
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
And 3 months ago Boris was popular, and won England with a higher vote share than Nippy achieved for the SNP in Scotland.
Popular and right are not always the same thing. If you have principles and you can say "this is wrong" even when its popular, then stand by your principles.
Lol. Says the man that until very very recently was the leading PB fanboy for Boris Johnson!!
Sky News have picked up the Mail's leader that Downing St police have given "extremely damning" evidence to Sue Gray.
Well I'm happy if that's true but how the blazers does anyone know this? How would that have leaked? Serious question.
Indeed. As has been noted as well a lot of the comments about what Grays findings may be are either made up expectations management or implicit accusation she is corrupt and leaking details.
Leaking what you are thinking or may be determining during an investigation shouldn't need to be in the terms of reference!
The findings being public is a reemphasis of that, since leaking partial findings would be most improper and misleading.
The Chilcot Inquiry collected most of its evidence in public sessions.
A public inquiry is not the same thing. Surely you dont think every investigation on any matter, big and small, confidential or non sensitive, is conducted like the live blog of a cricket match? If its not an explicitly public thing by its nature then things need to conclude before they are released.
I think if you want an inquiry done properly, then do it properly. If you set up something in a ramshackled, poorly defined way - that has to change who is leading it because the first choice failed to mention he was at one of the parties! - then I don’t think you can complain if there are leaks.
It’s like neighbours who are getting divorced who then complain you can hear them shouting. If the Government/Conservative Party wasn’t fighting its civil war in public, we wouldn’t be reading all this stuff.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
Dated 2011. The Russian annexation of Crimea was 2014. I seem to remember that order wasn't fully completed because exports were blocked in 2014.
So, did Germany actually export any arms to Russia after they annexed Crimea in 2014?
Russian troops invaded Georgia in 2008. They were in Moldova by 1992 (arguably 1990).
Yes, of course, and I have campaigned against German arms exports since I have been in Germany.
My question is whether it is accurate that Germany has exported to Russia since Crimea? I have read it a few times on here, but can't find anything to support it.
They continued work on the training centre and supporting it until after very strong pressure from the US, after Crimea....
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
The only conclusion I draw from that little outburst is that you're hysterically unable to read - or understand - or remember. Not sure which.
But if you really feel that's the only way you can defend the prime minister, you'd better carry on with it.
I've called repeatedly for months now for Boris to go. So not defending him.
But you're the one claiming there was a looming catastrophe were you not? You were extremely rude to me and others claiming we didn't understand exponential growth, simply because we disagreed with you.
The simple fact is that if the rate of exponential growth in infections that we saw in early- to mid-December had continued as it was, the health service and probably much of our other infrastructure would have collapsed around the New Year. And given the data, there was no reason to expect the growth rate would drop until well beyond that point.
Fortunately the growth rate did suddenly drop. I don't believe anyone understands why. And I don't think people like you predicted it would drop. I think you just repeated the mantra "Infections don't matter any more".
As it is, I always made it perfectly clear what assumptions I was making. People like you just said there shouldn't be any restrictions, and that everything would be fine, and that infections were meaningless, and so on and so forth.
And of course you're going to claim now that facts have proved you were right all along and everyone else was hysterical and unreasonable. But just because a 100-1 outsider comes in, that doesn't mean the reckless gambler who staked his life savings on it was right all along. Quite the opposite.
Surprised at the likes on this post.
Bart is right: you were insulting to those who disagreed with you. "Stupid", was your epithet of choice as I recall.
Now you are trying to rewrite history – again.
100-1 outsider. FFS, the South Africans had already told us that Milder was 1-3 odds-on favourite.
You ignored them. Others did not.
Yep. Chris has been proved consistently wrong on all his claims related to the threat of Covid over the past year or more and has never once been willing to admit he got it wrong. All he does is repeat the same old idiocy and then once he is shown to be wrong, lie about what he said.
What specifically was Chris wrong about?
He said there would be 800k cases/day. There weren't, as far as I am aware.
I questioned this point before. I understand his prediction was 800,000 infections per day. And I wasn't able to work out how many there actually were. I can see from Zoe that total infections peaked a couple of weeks ago at about 2.8 million, but I don't see any day-by-day new cases data. So I'm unclear how good a prediction that was.
I am not entirely sure I know the difference between infections and cases because if we know about the former don't they automatically become the latter?
But whichever it was he was wrong.
Not everyone gets tested and many cases are asymptomatic, or so mild that people don't realise they have covid, especially after vaccination. No one has ever claimed that the reported positive tests = 100% of the new infections.
Yes, infections are higher than cases. There must be a good estimate of this somewhere, I'd have thought.
Its not a fixed ratio. For instance in March and April 2020 no one would deny that infections were hugely bigger than cases (positive tests) as testing was so restricted. At other times, say July 2020 we had ramped up testing and got cases very low, so were probably catching most of them. Now, with omicron verses heavily vaccinated and infection recovered population, we probably have a lot of people not testing as not unwell/can't be bothered.
The ONS numbers are probably the best guide (as @Malmesbury) says - a random pick of people, seeing who is positve.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
As you will remember, within the last few years Putin has killed on our shores, using radioactive substances. True, it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived, but just because he's not a 'despot intent on conquering western Europe' does not mean that he could not be equally evil in other ways.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
I take full responsibility is just one of those meaningless phrases, where it sounds obvious that it's a good thing, but in actual fact it's often ridiculous.
No one should be taking full responsibility for anything that someone else does, there surely has to be at least some portion of blame that falls on the person who did the thing.
The phrasing reflects a chain of command.
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
Would drinking to excess in the office have been a problem, had we not had a once in a century pandemic that meant pubs were shut and people were locked down in homes?
Hell no.
And where is the evidence of "to excess" by the way?
Surprised you should say that. "I didn't get pished" didn't get people off under the covid legislation.
Of course it didn't. Its just that these references to drinking to excess seem evidence free. It doesn't excuse the behaviour. And it certainly doesn't excuse Boris lying about it.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
Dated 2011. The Russian annexation of Crimea was 2014. I seem to remember that order wasn't fully completed because exports were blocked in 2014.
So, did Germany actually export any arms to Russia after they annexed Crimea in 2014?
Russian troops invaded Georgia in 2008. They were in Moldova by 1992 (arguably 1990).
Yes, of course, and I have campaigned against German arms exports since I have been in Germany.
My question is whether it is accurate that Germany has exported to Russia since Crimea? I have read it a few times on here, but can't find anything to support it.
They continued work on the training centre and supporting it until after very strong pressure from the US, after Crimea....
I'd like to take your word for it, but any source for what actually happened?
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
Thousands of body bags arriving at RAF Lyneham. (Which is in Wiltshire. Which is in England. Quick geography lesson for mendacious BritNat Nige.)
You are a very very sick bastard. If there were any proof needed that many Scots Nats are nasty and unpleasant wankers then your posts like this (and particularly the previous one on this subject where you seemed to think this could be a topic of amusement) certainly provide it.
I could not agree more
He is not representative of the Scottish people, just bigoted and anti English
Nonsense.
I’m an Anglophile. Very pro-England and her people.
What I’m opposed to is British Nationalism, which is rampant on these threads. Shame on you Big G for joining in their chorus.
Rubbish. I have never once seen you say anything that was not highly critical of the English. And usually in the most crass and ignorant manner as well.
It is slightly Jews/Israel, the kind of conflation that got Corbyn into a mess.
The greatest achievement of the SNP is cementing a distinction between "Westminster" and "the English".
I agree - and bear in mind I am a positive advocate for a successful Scottish independence. But Stuart does not attack Westminster alone. He specifically attacks the English. It is a stupid and pointless attitude and betrays some deep seated and rather unseemly loathing on his part.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
The EU is suffering from Germany procrastination and the fact it does not have a coordinated defence mechanism
Furthermore, now more than ever it is missing the UK with the UK leading with the US in providing military and technical help and NATO increasing ships and aircraft into Eastern Europe
The Ukraine ambassador to the UK was extremely bitter towards Germany on yesterday's media
Germany was neutered by the 4 occupying powers (Soviet empire, British empire, French empire and American empire).
You cannot neuter a political entity and then complain when it cannot act in an aggressive fashion.
(Well, Tories can. Obviously. Maybe you’re a “Real” Tory after all Big G.)
Germany had no problem supplying military equipment and training to... Russia.
After Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. And was continuing to fight a war there.
Germany's policy is up to Germany, its none of our business. If they have become Russia-ambivalent or Russia apologist, that's up to them.
What we should here in Britain should do is stop pretending the West is what it was and that Germany is a reliable ally, when it may not be. We have to adjust our policy approach. Very regrettable in the circumstances, but perhaps necessary.
Which makes sense. Unfortunately national governments tend to do what they think is in the best short-term interests of their country, (and/or themselves/their mates personally/their party/the interests they represent). Not sure why Germany in particular should be expected to be any different.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
Dated 2011. The Russian annexation of Crimea was 2014. I seem to remember that order wasn't fully completed because exports were blocked in 2014.
So, did Germany actually export any arms to Russia after they annexed Crimea in 2014?
Russian troops invaded Georgia in 2008. They were in Moldova by 1992 (arguably 1990).
Yes, of course, and I have campaigned against German arms exports since I have been in Germany.
My question is whether it is accurate that Germany has exported to Russia since Crimea? I have read it a few times on here, but can't find anything to support it.
I'm sure Britain and the USA have exported to Saudi.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
If you leave lockdowns to the last minute, they end up having to be (much) longer. If they are so evil, should you not act in a way so as to minimise the total amount of time in lockdown? That means going early so you can come out sooner, even if occasionally you end up with a short, unnecessary lockdown.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
A Far-Away Country ... of Which We Know Nothing
Essentially. There is no way that NATO should get involved in a shooting war with Russia over the Ukraine.
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots, not to please random unqualified Tories with wild epidemiology theories on an obscure blog.
"Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots". Hmm. Maybe. Particularly if you conflate interests of Scots with interests of SNP.
I think what she has done is very astutely understand that Scots like the idea of themselves being more prudent and cautious than those that live to the south. She has therefore sought to differentiate the ScotGov approach by always appearing to be more cautious than the UK, while in practice shadowing it. It's a sensible political approach as there is no real downside, but has little to do with the actualite of the pandemic, and certainly takes no account of the economic consequences, something which, in any event, is of little interest to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure that everyone understands this thing called democracy. They just won a 4th term with their biggest ever vote tally in the biggest ever turnout. If nippie wasn't seen to be governing in the best interests of the nation that would not have happened...
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
And 3 months ago Boris was popular, and won England with a higher vote share than Nippy achieved for the SNP in Scotland.
Popular and right are not always the same thing. If you have principles and you can say "this is wrong" even when its popular, then stand by your principles.
Lol. Says the man that until very very recently was the leading PB fanboy for Boris Johnson!!
Because Boris has overall been a good PM and was the right person to back. No regrets.
I've given my reasons why he should go. They are clear and unambiguous and others can understand them, even if you can't wrap your head around a more nuanced thought that "duuhhh I don't like Boris, he's bad".
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
As you will remember, within the last few years Putin has killed on our shores, using radioactive substances. True, it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived, but just because he's not a 'despot intent on conquering western Europe' does not mean that he could not be equally evil in other ways.
Pouring wine into a printer is acceptable if and only if you are making a comment on the quality of both wine and printer. A Lexmark and a cheap Merlot deserve one another's company.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
I expect a reduced Labour lead today with Redfield and Wilton of about 10% as the storm slowly blows over.
I can see Johnson lasting at least another 6-11 months.
Storm slowly blowing over talk is just silly given that we are only on the way in at the moment. Unless you expect Gray to be a damp squib and I don't see how that works because it requires her finding nothing to see here move along, and everybody meekly accepting that.
Are you on the side of the rebels, Z, your hopes and best wishes travel with them? If so You have to regard yourself as being in a partial position, a protagonist, either unconsciously or consciously, your posts on this are lacking something because of it.
The coup attempt was right IMO It’s better for Tories in long run the policy chalk board changed hand to those who can put better things on it. But then the coup revealed something nobody knew existed - there is still too much faith at this time in Project Boris, he has enough support believing he has not failed yet.
He will probably lead them into the next election now, and at this stage none of us can be certain he will cease to be PM after it.
Blessed are the PB MoonRabbits, analysing and predicting what is actually happening rather than just posting partisan gumpf or following media narrative 😇
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is to obviously invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not Hitler's regime either.
Is it not?
How is Putin's Russia any better than 1938 Nazi Germany?
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
Indeed - which is why demanding Putin's unconditional surrender is not appropriate.
What is appropriate, is helping Ukraine to defend itself.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
If you leave lockdowns to the last minute, they end up having to be (much) longer. If they are so evil, should you not act in a way so as to minimise the total amount of time in lockdown? That means going early so you can come out sooner, even if occasionally you end up with a short, unnecessary lockdown.
If you have an unnecessary lockdown, you have completely failed.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
We are not going to war over Ukraine. Supplies yes, troops no.
However if Putin invaded Poland, now a Nato member, obviously we would go to war as we did with Hitler in 1939
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is to obviously invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not Hitler's regime either.
Is it not?
How is Putin's Russia any better than 1938 Nazi Germany?
For that matter, how is Xi's China any better?
It should be obvious how it is not. In some way Xi's China is a little closer, however.
Of course it didn't. Its just that these references to drinking to excess seem evidence free.
They were shipping in wine by the suitcase.
They bought a fridge to hold it all.
What definition of "excess" are you working to?
Excess to me would be obliterated drunk.
It would take more than one suitcase of wine shared between 40 people to get people that drunk.
Depends how much was already in the building [edit] and, of course, provided through BYOB. They did run out of the stuff and that's why the suitcase run was needed. And IIRC there was more than one suitcase run from what the supermarket staff said?
Imagine if Boris had done the decent thing and resigned which, as his defenestration is inevitable, would have been the sensible thing to have done. The view that he was a consequential PM who had taken the fall over something relatively trivial would have become a pretty general view and led rapidly to his reputational rehabilitation and an enjoyable, credible and lucrative post-PM career. Instead of which...
Do you think Brand Boris has been irredeemably trashed? I think so but recognise I'm a somewhat partial observer.
I don't think it has, a couple of years from now he'll be writing columns in the Telegraph again and collecting tens of thousands per speaking engagement.
Quite reasonably too. Heck even Theresa May gets such from speaking engagements.
Boris has been a successful PM but he's burnt too many bridges and became too arrogant. The hubristic attempt to save Patterson combined with not following own rules over drinking is the end of him.
But when all is said and done and once the heat and fire have gone out of this, he'll have a successful record. All careers end in failure, but his is over what should have been trivial stuff badly handled instead of getting the big calls on political issues like Brexit or vaccines wrong.
Sorry but to borrow cycleefree's theme 'All the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten his sticky little hand' He's been a disaster. The worst PM in recent memory (Chinese use of 'recent'). The only comfort is when he's gone we'll be able to have a serious appraisil of his 'Covid success'
Only the Moaning Myrtle's who abhor Brexit and all it stands for are banging on about how he's been a disaster.
Being objective, there's no reason to say that. First country in the world to roll out vaccines. First major country in the world to vaccinate all the vulnerable, then all the population (who wanted it). First major country in the world to roll out boosters. First country in Europe to lift all Covid restrictions.
If he'd only made the trains run on time he'd have a full house.
Considering you were hysterically screaming in December about what an imminent disaster we were doomed to without restrictions due to the exponential growth and that those of us who disagreed were just too stupid to realise how catastrophic it all was . . . surely you must credit the boosters and Boris with being able to avert the catastrophe you were warning us about?
Or would you rather just scream fire in a crowded theatre and then when there's no fire just pretend you always knew all was fine.
Why must we credit Johnson with the Boosters? Did he invent them? If I ever see him in a white labcoat he's more likely to be handing out IceCream (a la Mr Whippy), or in a hard hat as well polishing a JCB.
For the same reason we must blame him for the parties. The buck stops there.
His government bought the vaccines and rolled them out, faster than any other major country on the planet. If you don't think that's worthy of credit, presumably you also don't think parties are worthy of blame?
What's sauce for the goose ...
Nonsense in that’s two very different things.
Roll out programme as with all things fighting covid has been a National effort. Your attempt to stamp any success with Tory moniker there is quite disgusting.
Of course its been a national effort, but who's running the nation? The buck stops at the top for good and bad.
Had the rollout been a disaster you wouldn't hesitate to blame the Tories for that now would you?
Virtually every other country on the planet has had fighting Covid as a national effort too but no other major nation has handled vaccines as well as the UK has. No other nation in Europe has been able to remove all restrictions before England.
And its only Tory-led England that avoided further restrictions in December too. NI, Wales and Scotland all handled that worse and felt the compulsion to impose new restrictions, which England didn't.
- “ Scotland… handled that worse”
Huh?
‘Nicola Sturgeon backed by majority of Scots over Christmas Covid rules in poll’ - Scots overwhelmingly back the stricter approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon in response to the Omicron variant, a new poll has found.
Are you HYUFD? Do opinion polls trump what is right and wrong in your eyes?
Restrictions are bad. That Sturgeon and the majority of Scots wrongly backed them as necessary, when they weren't, shows that Sturgeon and the majority of Scots were wrong.
Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots, not to please random unqualified Tories with wild epidemiology theories on an obscure blog.
"Sturgeon governs in the interest of Scots". Hmm. Maybe. Particularly if you conflate interests of Scots with interests of SNP.
I think what she has done is very astutely understand that Scots like the idea of themselves being more prudent and cautious than those that live to the south. She has therefore sought to differentiate the ScotGov approach by always appearing to be more cautious than the UK, while in practice shadowing it. It's a sensible political approach as there is no real downside, but has little to do with the actualite of the pandemic, and certainly takes no account of the economic consequences, something which, in any event, is of little interest to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure that everyone understands this thing called democracy. They just won a 4th term with their biggest ever vote tally in the biggest ever turnout. If nippie wasn't seen to be governing in the best interests of the nation that would not have happened...
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
And 3 months ago Boris was popular, and won England with a higher vote share than Nippy achieved for the SNP in Scotland.
Popular and right are not always the same thing. If you have principles and you can say "this is wrong" even when its popular, then stand by your principles.
Lol. Says the man that until very very recently was the leading PB fanboy for Boris Johnson!!
Because Boris has overall been a good PM and was the right person to back. No regrets.
I've given my reasons why he should go. They are clear and unambiguous and others can understand them, even if you can't wrap your head around a more nuanced thought that "duuhhh I don't like Boris, he's bad".
Oh Philip, come on you can give me a little more credit than that. I have given many reasons over all the years that The Clown has been leader of the Conservative Party and before it, as to why he is not fit for office. There are numerous reasons though at the core of it is there are the two main reasons, namely that he is fundamentally dishonest and incompetent. It is written all over him that he is unsuitable, but to be fair, and without wishing to rub it in, I do largely make a living from being a "judge of character", whereas I guess you don't.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is to obviously invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not Hitler's regime either.
Is it not?
How is Putin's Russia any better than 1938 Nazi Germany?
For that matter, how is Xi's China any better?
It should be obvious how it is not. In some way Xi's China is a little closer, however.
Though Xi's China is at least over the other side of the world in Far East Asia, unlike Putin's Russia half of which is in Europe
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
I would suggest that it is comparable in the way we understood Germany in 1938. They were another large and expansionist European power using a variety of excuses and threats to annex various neighbours. I do not expect Russia in any way to turn out to be a genocidal regime in the way Nazi Germany was but in purely geopolitical terms I see a lot of similarities. To dismiss the comparisons because of what we later learnt about the Nazis does not really help the discussion.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
Thousands of body bags arriving at RAF Lyneham. (Which is in Wiltshire. Which is in England. Quick geography lesson for mendacious BritNat Nige.)
You are a very very sick bastard. If there were any proof needed that many Scots Nats are nasty and unpleasant wankers then your posts like this (and particularly the previous one on this subject where you seemed to think this could be a topic of amusement) certainly provide it.
I could not agree more
He is not representative of the Scottish people, just bigoted and anti English
Nonsense.
I’m an Anglophile. Very pro-England and her people.
What I’m opposed to is British Nationalism, which is rampant on these threads. Shame on you Big G for joining in their chorus.
Rubbish. I have never once seen you say anything that was not highly critical of the English. And usually in the most crass and ignorant manner as well.
It is slightly Jews/Israel, the kind of conflation that got Corbyn into a mess.
The greatest achievement of the SNP is cementing a distinction between "Westminster" and "the English".
I agree - and bear in mind I am a positive advocate for a successful Scottish independence. But Stuart does not attack Westminster alone. He specifically attacks the English. It is a stupid and pointless attitude and betrays some deep seated and rather unseemly loathing on his part.
It also shows a very small brained prejudice. "The English" are a somewhat diverse group of folk. I think he just uses it as a prejudiced shorthand for people he hates including those who are Scottish who don't share his views.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
If you leave lockdowns to the last minute, they end up having to be (much) longer. If they are so evil, should you not act in a way so as to minimise the total amount of time in lockdown? That means going early so you can come out sooner, even if occasionally you end up with a short, unnecessary lockdown.
No, absolutely categorically not.
That's like saying like Judge Dredd the Police should extrajudicially kill those they think are guilty of murder without a trial, even if you kill a few innocents, because then you're going to stop more murders.
An unnecessary lockdown is an utter failure and to have a lockdown the case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If that means in the very rare occasions it actually becomes necessary that it has to last a bit longer, then so be it.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
It's the most recent relevant comparison since "world war" was mentioned. I happen to find that notion a little overdramatic, but I'm not going to shy away from the topic. The world war started by Germany (yes, Germany, not us, and let's not quibble about Japan either) in 1939 was awful, but staying out of it and letting the Naazis win would have been worse. Putin has a clear and open strategic objective to damage and destroy democracies, so at some point we have to build a barrier he is not willing to try to cross. Se non ora, quando? In this respect, the situation is similar to 1939. It is not meant to say that we are the same as we were back then and the Putin is a facsimile of Hitler. No, it's that the strategic situation is a threat to our system of government, and action is needed IF we want to preserve that. Personally, in broad terms, I do.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is to obviously invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not Hitler's regime either.
Is it not?
How is Putin's Russia any better than 1938 Nazi Germany?
For that matter, how is Xi's China any better?
It should be obvious how it is not. In some way Xi's China is a little closer, however.
I'm not seeing any obvious ways.
The way it is threatening its neighbours and the way it is treating "troublesome" minorities in places like Chechnya and more is all comparable to 1930s Germany.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
I don't think that's true. The comparison is not inapt, as the arguments in favour of placating Putin are effectively the same - giving up an independent nation in exchange for peace.
No one's arguing Russia is Nazi Germany; just that appeasement might well be similarly ineffective this time around.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
UK will send weapons, drones and probably a few “diplomats” from Hereford to help out. As will most of the West, including the US once Mr President has woken up from his afternoon nap.
The RAF MQ-9A fleet is in Mosul and Kuwait, though with American mercenaries, sorry contractors, doing the launch and recovery element. They can't transit controlled airspace and couldn't be deconflicted even if they could get to Ukraine.
This isn't some Call of Duty DLC with really good textures we're talking about. It's a real shooting war with fucking Russia. I can't believe how naive and blasé people are about involving British forces.
Agreed, though of course there are already UK forces in Ukraine - albeit in limited numbers, and for training purposes only.
Is there anyone here arguing for committing British forces to fight in Ukraine?
I am. If Ukraine requests them.
Then you are foolish. That risks escalating to WWIII for very little gain over sending equipment.
Appeasement didn't work in 1938 and 1939. The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive. We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years? How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
But to mention Appeasement is obviously to invoke an exact historical comparison, as if Putin's Russia was Nazi Germany. It's not great, but it's not that, either.
Indeed - which is why demanding Putin's unconditional surrender is not appropriate.
What is appropriate, is helping Ukraine to defend itself.
Unconditional surrender? That's a conceptual pivot even RT would be embarrassed to make. Very strange comment from you.
I expect a reduced Labour lead today with Redfield and Wilton of about 10% as the storm slowly blows over.
I can see Johnson lasting at least another 6-11 months.
Storm slowly blowing over talk is just silly given that we are only on the way in at the moment. Unless you expect Gray to be a damp squib and I don't see how that works because it requires her finding nothing to see here move along, and everybody meekly accepting that.
Are you on the side of the rebels, Z, your hopes and best wishes travel with them? If so You have to regard yourself as being in a partial position, a protagonist, either unconsciously or consciously, your posts on this are lacking something because of it.
The coup attempt was right IMO It’s better for Tories in long run the policy chalk board changed hand to those who can put better things on it. But then the coup revealed something nobody knew existed - there is still too much faith at this time in Project Boris, he has enough support believing he has not failed yet.
He will probably lead them into the next election now, and at this stage none of us can be certain he will cease to be PM after it.
Blessed are the PB MoonRabbits, analysing and predicting what is actually happening rather than just posting partisan gumpf or following media narrative 😇
I want Johnson gone, sure, but I have large ish betting positions so am trying to see beyond my personal preferences
We will see. The coup attempt hasn't really not succeeded yet, though. If I were a plotter I'd be begging my supporters to hold fire on letters until Gray has reported.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
We have covered this ground before. If you wait until the last possible minute, then you ensure that long lockdowns are needed. If you act earlier, then you can have shorter lockdowns.
BREAKING @William_Wragg met a Scotland Yard detective this morning to discuss claims of threats and blackmail of backbenchers by the whips and No 10. Wragg told me: “I have left matters with them. I’m afraid I can’t say anymore at this stage.” Whips sources deny the claims. https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1485612894431625222
I don't really have a strong opinion on this and have a suspicion that the whips have always been rather robust. Labour, for instance, have often employed some pretty hard men to enforce discipline such as Don Dixon, the former Jarrow MP.
I think the real point is how poisonous relations have become within the Parliamentary Conservative Party. That stuff like this is being broadcast to the media by MPs is a real sign of how things have deteriorated. Not so long ago, whatever beefs they had, this just wouldn't have happened. It's just another reason why Boris Johnston has to go. They need a reset.
For all the "didn't he do well!" comments on BJ and vaccines / the boosters is there any evidence that he is this visionary leader of people who can cut through the noise and chaos and get straight to not only the solution but how we do so at record speed?
We know that Mancock was the cabinet minister banging the cabinet table for vaccines in the early days. So the vaccine programme as an idea can't be attributed to Boris, nor can the actual amazing work done in developing it. He *authorised* it. Having been badgered by his Health Secretary and the actual scientists. "Oh cripes, ok then" is more his style than "I HAVE A VISION" leadership.
Same with boosters. He pulled the trigger on a seemingly impossible December booster program and thanks to herculean work by medics and volunteers we just about got away with it.
That's not true, the story of vaccines is Patrick Vallance and Dom approaching the PM telling him to take vaccine procurement away from the DoH and specifically Hancock because they/he was liable to fuck it up. Boris personally contacted Dame Kate Bingham and convinced her to take on the role as head of a new vaccine procurement body which would answer directly to him and Patrick Vallance, not the DoH.
Hancock got the meme that he watched a movie and bought all the vaccines but it's not true. It was Kate Bingham and team who did the purchasing and she was put in place by Boris but advised by Dom and Patrick Vallance.
Appreciate the correction of the record. My point remains - it was not the PM who like a titan stood there and said "we will need vaccines, get on with it". So when he personally gets the credit I just giggle a little.
I think listening to the advice and getting the DoH out of the picture was a good move, he could have done nothing and let Hancock fuck it up and land us with not enough of the right vaccines or bought loads of vaccines that didn't stand and chance of being approved because of cheapness (CureVac) because that's what the DoH would probably have done. It contrasts with what Starmer would have done in the same place as well. There's simply no chance that the current Labour party would allow a pharmaceuticals VC expert near the national vaccine procurement programme, this, IMO is where the plaudits are deserved, though that's not specific to Boris, rather a difference in outlook from Labour (though probably not Blair).
I'm not entirely sure a Labour government (I exclude Corbyn) wouldn't have ended up doing much the same, given that the expertise was in the private sector, and there was no real capacity for such accelerated programs in the public sector. No way of really knowing.
Hmm, I fear there would have been too much ideological resistance to allowing a VC person to lead the programme and we would probably have been in the EU procurement programme which we know didn't work out well for the first (and critical) 6 months of the rollout.
No real way of knowing - and I don't fancy setting up the whole experiment again to find out.
Where I think it is clear that Boris was demonstrably worse is on Winter 2020/21, which of course is when the bulk of deaths occurred (and when we knew vaccines were tantalisingly close).
Only if you're a lockdown lover.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
If you leave lockdowns to the last minute, they end up having to be (much) longer. If they are so evil, should you not act in a way so as to minimise the total amount of time in lockdown? That means going early so you can come out sooner, even if occasionally you end up with a short, unnecessary lockdown.
If you have an unnecessary lockdown, you have completely failed.
In the real world, it's difficult to tell what was necessary or unnecessary because you the counterfactual remains a hypothetical. It's even harder to tell at the time rather than with the benefit of much hindsight. But I can see such subtleties as how the real world works may be lost on the lockdown-phobic.
So let's look at a simpler comparison. Japan had no national or regional lockdowns. None whatsoever. If you don't want lockdowns, look to Japan. That's a success story. Boris Johnson fails on the number of deaths, and fails on the number of lockdowns.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
Thousands of body bags arriving at RAF Lyneham. (Which is in Wiltshire. Which is in England. Quick geography lesson for mendacious BritNat Nige.)
You are a very very sick bastard. If there were any proof needed that many Scots Nats are nasty and unpleasant wankers then your posts like this (and particularly the previous one on this subject where you seemed to think this could be a topic of amusement) certainly provide it.
I could not agree more
He is not representative of the Scottish people, just bigoted and anti English
Nonsense.
I’m an Anglophile. Very pro-England and her people.
What I’m opposed to is British Nationalism, which is rampant on these threads. Shame on you Big G for joining in their chorus.
Rubbish. I have never once seen you say anything that was not highly critical of the English. And usually in the most crass and ignorant manner as well.
It is slightly Jews/Israel, the kind of conflation that got Corbyn into a mess.
The greatest achievement of the SNP is cementing a distinction between "Westminster" and "the English".
No doubt supported by numerous English* SNP members.
*people originally from England who now live in Scotland.
I'm sure most English SNP members are perfectly friendly people, but it is very much possible to be English yet also be an Anglophobe. Corbynism pretty much demonstrates this, as many of the Absolute Boy's most committed followers despise the UK, England and Englishness.
EU foreign ministers are planning to condemn "Russia's continued aggressive actions and threats against Ukraine", while calling for de-escalation at Monday's (24 January) meeting in Brussels.
Can anybody understand or explain the EU's foreign policy approach on is eastern borders? It seems to lack all coherence.
Is the EU hopelessly split or hopelessly united? The spin changes so often one becomes dizzy.
They’re hopelessly split, trying hard to spin being united against Russia, while standing back and letting Putin roll the tanks towards Kiev.
As if they had a choice. They mostly rely on other powers to underwrite any military deterrent. Including powers that, in Britain, they have a rocky relationship with and despise.
Its nuts.
So what do the hawks on this propose? Sending our troops and planes to defend the Ukraine steppe? If so what happens if there is direct and fatal conflict with the Russian Army?
IF the west was united armed conflict wouldn't be necessary.
Divided, it isn't worth a single British life.
Is my view.
And you don't think that 3-4m refugees from the Ukraine is going to be a problem for us either? I am genuinely surprised how little attention this is getting whilst we wet ourselves about after work drinkies 2 years ago (and the rather more important matter of the PM lying about it). If Russia invades Europe will be in chaos and so will we. The economic consequences will be on a level with Covid, possibly even worse. We need to do what we can to discourage this disaster.
I misread that as "if Russia invades Europe" and was about to point out that its Ukraine and not Europe.
I watched the new Netflix film about the Munich agreement last night. Just 20 years after the end of a crushing war the fear of war rises again - its barely conceivable to my generation never mind my kids'.
What do I think we should do about Russia refounding the Soviet Union by force? Nothing militarily. Despite 30 years of post-cold war stability both sides retain the ability to reduce each other to pockets of Mad Max surrounded by oceans of molten glass.
Unlike in the late 30s we don't face down a despot intent on conquering western Europe and committing genocide. And should Putin decide to turn into one we have the ultimate deterrent to make him stop and think. We aren't going to get involved and Putin knows it. If they were about to invade France then maybe. But they're not.
As you will remember, within the last few years Putin has killed on our shores, using radioactive substances. True, it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived, but just because he's not a 'despot intent on conquering western Europe' does not mean that he could not be equally evil in other ways.
Do you mean radioactive? (So not Salisbury?)
Yeo, you're right. A brainfart moment on my part. Litvinenko was radioactive polonium poisoning. The Salisbury mess was *just* a nerve agent.
And where is the evidence of "to excess" by the way?
When was the last time you poured wine into a printer?
I don't think that I ever have. I have come pretty close to hitting more than 1 with a hammer but I was sober at the relevant times.
Not sure that is better, on reflection.
The printer probably deserved it. Most of them do, fecking things.
Where I used to work, we had one printer nicknamed "Bob", as in Marley, for obvious reasons - and one that had a tendency to give what we called "Coldplay prints".
Comments
Bozo is responsible for the culture and practise in No 10.
Did he pour wine into a printer? No.
Is he responsible for allowing drinking to excess in the office? Hell yes.
In the circumstances I am remarkably generous, composed and restrained. I deserve a little credit surely?
What a great pal the Yookay is. You poke and poke and poke Russia with a shitty stick and then act all surprised when she lifts her lip. Feel sorry for Ukraine being used as a bone.
So if, for example, you have close friends and/or family who have died from Covid, you'd probably wish we were more like New Zealand. But if you've been largely unaffected by the disease, you probably think we've done fine.
Oh. You said a credible one.
It's often repeated on here that Germany supplied military equipment to Russia after Russia had annexed the Crimea in 2014, but is this actually true? My understanding is that German arms exports to Russia have been blocked since then.
You seem to try to excuse Russia threatening a sovereign country which if allowed will then see Russia cast her eye towards the Baltic states, Finland and even Sweden where you live
Of all people I would have expected you to support Ukraine
*people originally from England who now live in Scotland.
The Euro does indeed mean that the evolution to a United States of Europe of some kind or another is inevitable. How swiftly that will happen and how many salami slices will take us there is another question. The ratchetting to a USE is likely to evolve over generations and not be a single discrete step.
British self interest......white Brexiteer nationalist racists.....!
Wragg told me: “I have left matters with them. I’m afraid I can’t say anymore at this stage.”
Whips sources deny the claims.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1485612894431625222
Hell no.
Again again, I campaigned for a different party. I am not an SNP supporter. But they are the government. And popular. So popular that they have smashed through an electoral system built to stop this happening. Hard to argue against them being popular!
Add Sri Lanka. Masks in shops - and that’s it
Otherwise the pandemic has disappeared (touch wood)
Paradise, indeed
So, did Germany actually export any arms to Russia after they annexed Crimea in 2014?
I have huge sympathy for those who have died and lost people. I hope that the inquiry(ies) will give them some solace, but I doubt it. Those who are now in the Covid Justice group, or whatever its called, have almost certainly made their minds up as to what went wrong and who was to blame.
Popular and right are not always the same thing. If you have principles and you can say "this is wrong" even when its popular, then stand by your principles.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/24/autonomy-eastern-ukraine-crisis-nato-russia-minsk
...All evidence suggests that Vladimir Putin wants a regime in Kyiv favourable to Russian interests, much as Soviet leaders wanted in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The west wisely did not argue or intervene on either of those occasions. Russia’s motives today seem much the same....
The casual dismissal of the immiseration of Eastern Europe lasting a couple of generations is quite something.
The difference now is that Ukraine is a fully independent state, and has no desire to be traded away in this manner.
As for his claim in the article that Minsk II is an 'obvious solution', read this article for a more sceptical view.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement
But with say the Gordon Brown incident, it's ridiculous IMO to expect a prime minister to resign over something an aide did, which he didn't know about, and which he would have stopped, had he known about it. If evidence had come to light that Mcbride had the okay from Gordon, then yes, fair enough - resignation time.
With the parties, if they were somehow happening without Johnson's knowledge, well you can't really expect him to resign. There may well have been parties at other departments, but wouldn't expect Johnson to resign over that.
But the fact that he attended them, approved of them, resisted efforts to stop them/tell him that they were a bad idea... well that's where it becomes damning for me.
My question is whether it is accurate that Germany has exported to Russia since Crimea? I have read it a few times on here, but can't find anything to support it.
Until the rubicon is crossed theres always doubt.
It’s like neighbours who are getting divorced who then complain you can hear them shouting. If the Government/Conservative Party wasn’t fighting its civil war in public, we wouldn’t be reading all this stuff.
We failed to do that in 2014, which is why we need a different approach. Is equipment enough? Let's hope so. But if it's not we either up the ante or we fold. And if we fold, how do you think things will look in another 8 years?
How will Europe enjoy a wave of Ukrainian refugees, with Russian agents provocateurs mixed in with them? I don't like the sound of that, personally.
The ONS numbers are probably the best guide (as @Malmesbury) says - a random pick of people, seeing who is positve.
Lockdowns are not a "precautionary principle" they are an evil that should be resisted until the last possible moment, only once it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be necessary. Considering the NHS didn't collapse in winter 2020/21 it looks like that was timed as late as possible, so it was called right to me.
The one thing I would say was wrong was having kids go in to school for the one day, then locking the country down that night, because it was the first working day back to make the decision: They should in my opinion have got the relevant people to work over the weekend and make that call on the weekend instead of the Monday.
If that means disrupting your weekend or holiday by a day then do that.
I've given my reasons why he should go. They are clear and unambiguous and others can understand them, even if you can't wrap your head around a more nuanced thought that "duuhhh I don't like Boris, he's bad".
They bought a fridge to hold it all.
What definition of "excess" are you working to?
Not sure that is better, on reflection.
It would take more than one suitcase of wine shared between 40 people to get people that drunk.
A Lexmark and a cheap Merlot deserve one another's company.
The coup attempt was right IMO It’s better for Tories in long run the policy chalk board changed hand to those who can put better things on it. But then the coup revealed something nobody knew existed - there is still too much faith at this time in Project Boris, he has enough support believing he has not failed yet.
He will probably lead them into the next election now, and at this stage none of us can be certain he will cease to be PM after it.
Blessed are the PB MoonRabbits, analysing and predicting what is actually happening rather than just posting partisan gumpf or following media narrative 😇
How is Putin's Russia any better than 1938 Nazi Germany?
For that matter, how is Xi's China any better?
What is appropriate, is helping Ukraine to defend itself.
However if Putin invaded Poland, now a Nato member, obviously we would go to war as we did with Hitler in 1939
That's like saying like Judge Dredd the Police should extrajudicially kill those they think are guilty of murder without a trial, even if you kill a few innocents, because then you're going to stop more murders.
An unnecessary lockdown is an utter failure and to have a lockdown the case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If that means in the very rare occasions it actually becomes necessary that it has to last a bit longer, then so be it.
Putin has a clear and open strategic objective to damage and destroy democracies, so at some point we have to build a barrier he is not willing to try to cross. Se non ora, quando?
In this respect, the situation is similar to 1939. It is not meant to say that we are the same as we were back then and the Putin is a facsimile of Hitler. No, it's that the strategic situation is a threat to our system of government, and action is needed IF we want to preserve that. Personally, in broad terms, I do.
The way it is threatening its neighbours and the way it is treating "troublesome" minorities in places like Chechnya and more is all comparable to 1930s Germany.
The comparison is not inapt, as the arguments in favour of placating Putin are effectively the same - giving up an independent nation in exchange for peace.
No one's arguing Russia is Nazi Germany; just that appeasement might well be similarly ineffective this time around.
We will see. The coup attempt hasn't really not succeeded yet, though. If I were a plotter I'd be begging my supporters to hold fire on letters until Gray has reported.
If you wait until the last possible minute, then you ensure that long lockdowns are needed.
If you act earlier, then you can have shorter lockdowns.
I think the real point is how poisonous relations have become within the Parliamentary Conservative Party. That stuff like this is being broadcast to the media by MPs is a real sign of how things have deteriorated. Not so long ago, whatever beefs they had, this just wouldn't have happened. It's just another reason why Boris Johnston has to go. They need a reset.
So let's look at a simpler comparison. Japan had no national or regional lockdowns. None whatsoever. If you don't want lockdowns, look to Japan. That's a success story. Boris Johnson fails on the number of deaths, and fails on the number of lockdowns.
I think if anything that reinforces my point ...