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.
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.
A non-appeasement response does not have to include military action. It can include genuinely crippling sanctions . Even this is not without risk as it could cause a response by Putin to take his population's attention away from their misery. My own view is that the West will have no option but to allow the invasion. They will then need to respond with sanctions that are designed to hurt Putin personally and also then support a Ukrainian insurgency. It will be a very long game with masses of unintended consequences.
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.
If they need a reset a period in opposition should do the trick.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in 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?
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
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.
Hmm. Only if you believe that governments exit restrictions at the exact moment an exit becomes advisable. History shows that they tend not to: policy inertia means restrictions linger longer than they should. For a small-scale example, as I write now, Plan B remains in force. We have had to wait an additional week beyond what the government considered necessary for the legislation to “expire”.
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.
One of the issues with lockdowns is this - saying if you go in early, you can come out earlier, doesn't match the reality. Ultimately, once you take you foot off the brake, you start accelerating down-hill again. Its why short 'circuit breakers' are nothing of the sort (as per Wales in the autumn of 2020). The only way out is vaccines, and the biggest mistake we made as a country was in November/December 2020 - knowing we had the vaccines, and could protect the most vulnerable, we could have locked down for that reason - vaccinate as quick as we could (supply dependent) and keep cases low in the meantime.
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
Yes, they hate three countries above all - the US, UK and Israel.
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?)
Alexander Litvinenko. Killed with Polonium.
Sorry for being picky, but he says 'it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived', so I'm confused, as I there is a conflation of two things.
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.
The other point is that behaviour which might once have been overlooked - workplace bullying, for example - simply isn't now. The talk of using GDPR to get whips to tell MPs what data they hold in them is a case in point. Long-standing traditions don't make it acceptable for whips to flout the law.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby and ad hoc klepto-autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculus of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is simply far, far more dangerous for the West to fully engage Russia in 2022 than it was for the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, to make such a dangerous course of action essential, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, is certainly not going to engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
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.
And if a Police Officer just puts a bullet through the head of anyone they think is a criminal, then the criminal justice system doesn't take as long to work out. Even if a few innocents get offed.
Acting earlier, or at all, is inexcusable unless the requirement to lockdown has been completely proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
If that means a longer lockdown may be needed, so be it, at least its been proven to be necessary.
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.
Hmm. Only if you believe that governments exit restrictions at the exact moment an exit becomes advisable. History shows that they tend not to: policy inertia means restrictions linger longer than they should. For a small-scale example, as I write now, Plan B remains in force. We have had to wait an additional week beyond what the government considered necessary for the legislation to “expire”.
Nah, I think the opposite. Restrictions much more likely to linger when govt has cocked up and lots of people have died, because everyone wants to look cautious after the screw-up and the public are scared.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
You're assuming that only deaths from the virus count, of course.
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
And have done the right thing.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
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.
One of the issues with lockdowns is this - saying if you go in early, you can come out earlier, doesn't match the reality. Ultimately, once you take you foot off the brake, you start accelerating down-hill again. Its why short 'circuit breakers' are nothing of the sort (as per Wales in the autumn of 2020). The only way out is vaccines, and the biggest mistake we made as a country was in November/December 2020 - knowing we had the vaccines, and could protect the most vulnerable, we could have locked down for that reason - vaccinate as quick as we could (supply dependent) and keep cases low in the meantime.
Lockdowns should be a last resort. Better test/trace/isolate, better mask-wearing, better ventilation, all would help, but the UK has often been bad at these. We discussed some of these problems at https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n608
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.
One of the issues with lockdowns is this - saying if you go in early, you can come out earlier, doesn't match the reality. Ultimately, once you take you foot off the brake, you start accelerating down-hill again. Its why short 'circuit breakers' are nothing of the sort (as per Wales in the autumn of 2020). The only way out is vaccines, and the biggest mistake we made as a country was in November/December 2020 - knowing we had the vaccines, and could protect the most vulnerable, we could have locked down for that reason - vaccinate as quick as we could (supply dependent) and keep cases low in the meantime.
Lockdowns should be a last resort. Better test/trace/isolate, better mask-wearing, better ventilation, all would help, but the UK has often been bad at these. We discussed some of these problems at https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n608
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
You're assuming that only deaths from the virus count, of course.
Not at all. It is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by the disruption to the NHS by high case numbers.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
Won't come as any surprise but La Sturgeon is at it again. IndyRef in '23 apparently. Ho ho. My feeling is that Scots are pretty scunnered with Covid, Brexit, etc, and not really up for this. Misstep? Or more aimed at shoring up position in SNP - although she seems pretty secure to 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.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully engage Russia in 2022 than it was for the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to the Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, is certainly not going to engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
I don't think the West will, either. But the policy of arming Ukraine to make the cost of invasion higher is IMO right, and should be supported by all of Europe. Ukraine certainly will engage fully with any invasion, whether we help them or not. Helping them in this manner might, just possibly, deter Putin.
What troubles me is those, like Simon Jenkins in the article I linked earlier, arguing 'just give Russia what they want'.
Entertaining and accurate lead - thank you Cyclefree. I especially enjoyed "rewilding of personal behaviour" - a lovely phrase.
Replying to The Valiant last thread - IIRC Alastair Meeks got fed up with being harassed over his pro-EU views. It'd be great if he could be encouraged back, as his excellent pieces are I think only reaching a small audience,
Replying to MoonRabbit - VONCs that fail are possible, simply because MPs are - how shall we put it - not always reliable in their assertions of what they will do in a secret ballot.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
You're assuming that only deaths from the virus count, of course.
Not at all. It is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by the disruption to the NHS by high case numbers.
Or it is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by social distancing measures etc taken to suppress case numbers.
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
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.
Hmm. Only if you believe that governments exit restrictions at the exact moment an exit becomes advisable. History shows that they tend not to: policy inertia means restrictions linger longer than they should. For a small-scale example, as I write now, Plan B remains in force. We have had to wait an additional week beyond what the government considered necessary for the legislation to “expire”.
Or the delay from June to July for lockdown 3 exit. There's always too many voices pleading for just one extra week/month of lockdown to eliminate COVID and get to zero cases. We get numpties talking about "dangerous experiments" and the "Johnson variant" or accusations of "ignoring the science" despite my experience of scientists being very split on the value of lockdowns and NPIs in a post vaccine society with well over than half in favour of calling time on restrictions. For people who favour lockdowns there's simply no tolerable level of COVID. New Zealand are finding that out the difficult way, the parish councillor in Wales has the ability to send the English taxpayer the bill, the Kiwis can't do that.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
You're assuming that only deaths from the virus count, of course.
Not at all. It is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by the disruption to the NHS by high case numbers.
Notably, you say nothing about the harms caused by the restrictions themselves, either directly or by the disruption caused to Our Sainted NHS by them.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
And have done the right thing.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
I like how I spoke of morbidity and mortality, but you turned that into "a bit of morbidity"! You see, I'm unaware of anything that strips away someone's fundamental human rights more than mortality.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
And have done the right thing.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
I like how I spoke of morbidity and mortality, but you turned that into "a bit of morbidity"! You see, I'm unaware of anything that strips away someone's fundamental human rights more than mortality.
Mortality is natural, it doesn't affect your rights. All lives end.
The government taking away our civil liberties is not natural.
But considering you're sharing links to Michie I don't think there's much point discussing this with someone as closed-minded as you are.
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
I think number 2 is most likely. And it might be as reliable as in the Mitchell case.
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
On a related point this coming crisis is a very good opportunity for Starmer. He and the front bench can be unambiguous in supporting Ukraine, condemning Russia and doing all the right things to support the UK in actions such as, for example, new sanctions. He can look Prime Ministerial, patriotic, solid. Everything Corbyn wasn't (and Boris isn't).
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
And have done the right thing.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
I like how I spoke of morbidity and mortality, but you turned that into "a bit of morbidity"! You see, I'm unaware of anything that strips away someone's fundamental human rights more than mortality.
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.
“ The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive.”
🤣🤣🤣
And how do you know you are achieving that? Surely the main factor it depends how determined or desperate the antagonist is, the very thing you cannot for certain be sure of?
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
I posted yesterday that it is perfectly possible that the No 10 police (who are protection officers rather than standard Met Police) may dislike being in a position where they were "responsible" for the parties as they couldn't fine and deal with the people involved.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
On a related point this coming crisis is a very good opportunity for Starmer. He and the front bench can be unambiguous in supporting Ukraine, condemning Russia and doing all the right things to support the UK in actions such as, for example, new sanctions. He can look Prime Ministerial, patriotic, solid. Everything Corbyn wasn't (and Boris isn't).
I believe that is what Starmer is doing. Which is the right thing - both for the country and his party.
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
Cyclefree - can all the report be published, if it destroys anonymity of those who spoke up and what they said?
In your opinion should the report be published in full?
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
I think number 2 is most likely. And it might be as reliable as in the Mitchell case.
The police are notorious for leaking to press - remember synchronising with the press on arrests of people who turned out to be innocent?
Indeed, they were appalled when it was suggested that they stop 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.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That's less dangerous to the West than the potential consequences of engaging MAD right now. These are simply the calculations that military planners make.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That horse bolted (probably) when Russia took Crimea.
Though if Russia takes more of Ukraine, that horse will have definitely been shot.
I wonder what the reaction of the "doves" here will be if the Ukrainian president renounces the treaty and Ukraine becomes a nuclear state again?
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
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.
We're able to multi task. If anything having a crooked Prime Minister at a time when Europe might be facing a crisis is even more a cause for concern
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.
“ The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive.”
🤣🤣🤣
And how do you know you are achieving that? Surely the main factor it depends how determined or desperate the antagonist is, the very thing you cannot for certain be sure of?
Prett odd argument that you can only do something if you're absolutely certain of its results. I suppose there's a case for saying that the UK should have neither foreign policy nor defence policy, but I think it would be a minority view.
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.
No, it is very specifically ”the English” for a lot of Scot Nats. Of course this is nuts on top of bigotry as “the English” means everyone from a Geordie fireman to a Punjabi stockbroker in Brum to a Jewish doctor in Bristol to a half Caribbean Devonian nurse to the Duke of Westminster to a Cockney gangster in Essex to you and me and God (surely an Englishman)
Nonetheless there is a lurking fear and loathing of “the English”, in toto, in Scot Nattery, even if a specific hatred is reserved for posher English Tory types.
The reason is fecking obvious. A deep seated inferiority complex, painfull to witness. But also highly understandable. The Scots have been whipped by the English for 1000 years and forced to speak the English language. That’s gonna leave scars
Moreover, should Scotland ever achieve Indy (if they get another chance) I’m not sure that would solve it. The Irish still have a deep-rooted Anglophobia born of inferiority complex, it was blatant in early Covid.
At least theirs is more justified, because of the Famine, and unlike the Scots they didn’t eagerly volunteer for the joint British enterprise of Empire, whipping lots of other countries in turn. The Scots did, with gusto.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That's less dangerous to the West than the potential consequences of engaging MAD right now. These are the calculations that military planners make.
So you just want to engage in 1930s style appeasement because its the easy way out.
Entertaining and accurate lead - thank you Cyclefree. I especially enjoyed "rewilding of personal behaviour" - a lovely phrase.
Replying to The Valiant last thread - IIRC Alastair Meeks got fed up with being harassed over his pro-EU views. It'd be great if he could be encouraged back, as his excellent pieces are I think only reaching a small audience,
Replying to MoonRabbit - VONCs that fail are possible, simply because MPs are - how shall we put it - not always reliable in their assertions of what they will do in a secret ballot.
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.
“ The way you prevent wars is by making aggression too expensive.”
🤣🤣🤣
And how do you know you are achieving that? Surely the main factor it depends how determined or desperate the antagonist is, the very thing you cannot for certain be sure of?
There are certainties in War - Death, misery, destruction....
The outcome isn't on of them. Indeed, it is arguable that every country that *started* a war since 1870 has lost.
Peace is to be preferred. But the question them becomes - Are *you* prepared to be the price of peace?
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That's less dangerous to the West than the potential consequences of engaging MAD right now. These are the calculations that military planners make.
So you just want to engage in 1930s style appeasement because its the easy way out.
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That's less dangerous to the West than the potential consequences of engaging MAD right now. These are the calculations that military planners make.
So you just want to engage in 1930s style appeasement because its the easy way out.
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.
Agreed, though there is the serious point on whether the police see the allegations as genuine blackmail. If it is "support the PM or we will out you as gay/ have had liaisons with rent boys/prostitutes etc." then I think that would be blackmail and a criminal offence would have been committed if evidence could be provided. Political coercion where it was inferred your constituency might not be at the front of the queue for "levelling up" funding might not be seen as such.
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.
Agreed, though there is the serious point on whether the police see the allegations as genuine blackmail. If it is "support the PM or we will out you as gay/ have had liaisons with rent boys/prostitutes etc." then I think that would be blackmail and a criminal offence would have been committed if evidence could be provided. Political coercion where it was inferred your constituency might not be at the front of the queue for "levelling up" funding might not be seen as such.
The irony being the latter is much, much more serious.
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
Cyclefree - can all the report be published, if it destroys anonymity of those who spoke up and what they said?
In your opinion should the report be published in full?
Can't you just accept the PM's word on the details ... ?
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
Are they not aware of Russia massing on Ukraine border?
Reading between the lines, French are actually accusing us of bigging the thing up.
The Russians are actually massing on the border in a serious way are they?
Yes, they are. Multiple reports from journalists from a number of countries of units from all over Russia massing in the area. Complete with photos from the ground, commercial satellite pictures etc.
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.
I wouldn't agree with that. Hitler's imperative for what he considered the living space of German peoples presented a much more immediate threat to the rest of the Europe than Russia does at the moment ; and that's even before you consider the enormous differences in what the Nazi regime was already conducting internally in 1938, with Putin's threadbare, somewhat shabby autocracy. This isn't to say Russia doesn't pose a real issue, but I don't think anachronisms rooted in a very specific historical moment help much either.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculation of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is far, far more dangerous for the West to fully take on Russia in 2022 than the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, that might necessitate such a dangerous course of action, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, will certainly not engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
By the same token, Putin's calculation ought to be that it's far too dangerous to take on the the west, because the US, UK, and France all have nukes. If deterrence works, it works both ways. All we have to do in that case is say "no, you may not just take Ukraine, we will help her if she asks."
Engaging the MAD doctrine when we don't have to would be madness. That's why the West won't take that course of action.
We do have to.
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
That's less dangerous to the West than the potential consequences of engaging MAD right now. These are the calculations that military planners make.
So you just want to engage in 1930s style appeasement because its the easy way out.
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.
The rozzers themselves?
Only 3 possible sources:-
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed. 2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press. 3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
Cyclefree - can all the report be published, if it destroys anonymity of those who spoke up and what they said?
In your opinion should the report be published in full?
Can't you just accept the PM's word on the details ... ?
Entertaining and accurate lead - thank you Cyclefree. I especially enjoyed "rewilding of personal behaviour" - a lovely phrase.
Replying to The Valiant last thread - IIRC Alastair Meeks got fed up with being harassed over his pro-EU views. It'd be great if he could be encouraged back, as his excellent pieces are I think only reaching a small audience,
Replying to MoonRabbit - VONCs that fail are possible, simply because MPs are - how shall we put it - not always reliable in their assertions of what they will do in a secret ballot.
Too many stages, cant we even have a crisis efficiently?
I'm observing. Not mandating.
It was a joke regarding government competence.
I know. My professional career has been based on stages 1-10 being very prolonged indeed. Thank God!
Mind you, the government has - from one perspective - been amazingly efficient at grouping all these scandals one after the other over the dull winter months and seemingly just in time for a European war followed by seminal elections.
It has all the choreography of a good drama series.
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
He probably thinks he is being clever. The problem with some reasonably clever people is that they often think they are much cleverer than they actually are. The alternative might be that he is worried he might incriminate himself so needs to get a lawyer to check any response.
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.
No, it is very specifically ”the English” for a lot of Scot Nats. Of course this is nuts on top of bigotry as “the English” means everyone from a Geordie fireman to a Punjabi stockbroker in Brum to a Jewish doctor in Bristol to a half Caribbean Devonian nurse to the Duke of Westminster to a Cockney gangster in Essex to you and me and God (surely an Englishman)
Nonetheless there is a lurking fear and loathing of “the English”, in toto, in Scot Nattery, even if a specific hatred is reserved for posher English Tory types.
The reason is fecking obvious. A deep seated inferiority complex, painfull to witness. But also highly understandable. The Scots have been whipped by the English for 1000 years and forced to speak the English language. That’s gonna leave scars
Moreover, should Scotland ever achieve Indy (if they get another chance) I’m not sure that would solve it. The Irish still have a deep-rooted Anglophobia born of inferiority complex, it was blatant in early Covid.
At least theirs is more justified, because of the Famine, and unlike the Scots they didn’t eagerly volunteer for the joint British enterprise of Empire, whipping lots of other countries in turn. The Scots did, with gusto.
Until the 1707 Act of Union of course Scotland was England's oldest enemy after the French. The French and Scots often combined against England via the Auld Alliance.
The French also assisted Catholics in Ireland against the British eg at the Battle of the Boyne or Wolfe Tone
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?)
Alexander Litvinenko. Killed with Polonium.
Sorry for being picky, but he says 'it was a botched assassination, and the targets lived', so I'm confused, as I there is a conflation of two things.
Ah got you. Yes I believe it is a conflation but obviously can't speak for JJ.
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
It wasn’t just that Mr Meeks couldn’t accept defeat, it was more that Brexit seemed to make him physically ill, and delirious with loathing
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
On a related point this coming crisis is a very good opportunity for Starmer. He and the front bench can be unambiguous in supporting Ukraine, condemning Russia and doing all the right things to support the UK in actions such as, for example, new sanctions. He can look Prime Ministerial, patriotic, solid. Everything Corbyn wasn't (and Boris isn't).
Looking more patriotic that Corbyn is not a big ask, is it? But I agree, it is another chance to consolidate his recent impression of a PM in waiting.
Michelle Clifford, Europe correspondent of Sky confirming there is disunity in the EU over Russia with Germany and their stance at present
Also confirmed reports of NATO sending arms and troops to eastern Europe including French participation
Just heard a US Senator state on TV that 42% of the German economy is dependent on Russian gas supplies. Stunning (and stunningly stupid on the Germans' part) if so.
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.
Excellent sneaky accusation of English SNP members being Anglophobes. That sort of sclerotic view is why Lab are just as meh in Scotland polling wise as they've been for a decade despite the Starmer miracle (aka hanging on until everyone realises how shite is BJ).
Is there only one version of the UK, England and Englishness? Who knew?
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.
Agreed, though there is the serious point on whether the police see the allegations as genuine blackmail. If it is "support the PM or we will out you as gay/ have had liaisons with rent boys/prostitutes etc." then I think that would be blackmail and a criminal offence would have been committed if evidence could be provided. Political coercion where it was inferred your constituency might not be at the front of the queue for "levelling up" funding might not be seen as such.
Or it might. The idea that schools' funding should be at the disposal of party whips is unconscionable, and quite probably falls under criminal misconduct in a public office.
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.
No, it is very specifically ”the English” for a lot of Scot Nats. Of course this is nuts on top of bigotry as “the English” means everyone from a Geordie fireman to a Punjabi stockbroker in Brum to a Jewish doctor in Bristol to a half Caribbean Devonian nurse to the Duke of Westminster to a Cockney gangster in Essex to you and me and God (surely an Englishman)
Nonetheless there is a lurking fear and loathing of “the English”, in toto, in Scot Nattery, even if a specific hatred is reserved for posher English Tory types.
The reason is fecking obvious. A deep seated inferiority complex, painfull to witness. But also highly understandable. The Scots have been whipped by the English for 1000 years and forced to speak the English language. That’s gonna leave scars
Moreover, should Scotland ever achieve Indy (if they get another chance) I’m not sure that would solve it. The Irish still have a deep-rooted Anglophobia born of inferiority complex, it was blatant in early Covid.
At least theirs is more justified, because of the Famine, and unlike the Scots they didn’t eagerly volunteer for the joint British enterprise of Empire, whipping lots of other countries in turn. The Scots did, with gusto.
Until the 1707 Act of Union of course Scotland was England's oldest enemy after the French. The French and Scots often combined against England via the Auld Alliance.
The French also assisted Catholics in Ireland against the British eg at the Battle of the Boyne or Wolfe Tone
No way the French helped the Irish against the British at the Boyne. The British didn't exist as such.
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
It wasn’t just that Mr Meeks couldn’t accept defeat, it was more that Brexit seemed to make him physically ill, and delirious with loathing
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
It seems that you can't accept "victory" as you seem to post about Brexit even more than you do about aliens and the Chinese or how good your latest cocktail is/was. Maybe it is because you realise it was nothing more than a pyrrhic victory, and that Mr. Meeks was right all along?
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Thank you for that insight. He says though Sue agreed it was a good idea? Can he not ”testify under oath” in written answers? As he promised I’m sure there are some a tad disappointed Doms input now has a line through.
Dom also implies Boris has some security angle thing hanging over Dom and waiting to use it? What a bizarre twist!
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Please Cyclefree, that is unladylike. remember the adage:
Men should only weep in war, women should only swear in bed
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
More relevantly - MUCH more relevantly - the site's most astute political tipster ever.
Your problem is called recency bias. It feels to you as if we have always been waiting for Gray to report, therefore we will always be waiting for Gray to report, and nothing will ever change.
Senior Elysée source tells me: “There is a kind of alarmism in Washington and London which we cannot understand. We see no immediate likelihood of Russian military action. We simply want our interpretation to be taken into account before a common western approach is agreed.”
Are they not aware of Russia massing on Ukraine border?
Reading between the lines, French are actually accusing us of bigging the thing up.
The Russians are actually massing on the border in a serious way are they?
None of us really know what's happening, so it's hard for us to judge who is right here. I could imagine there being merit in both the French and the Anglo-Saxon perspectives here. The French are perhaps seeing military practicalities on the ground and/or the Russians' planned diplomatic playbook and consider there are a few more chapters to run; the US and UK may see the diplomatic benefit in ramping up the alarm in order to galvanise NATO support and also ensure Putin doesn't think he can catch NATO snoozing. Or the French may have different intelligence, though why would they give this away?
At times like this is would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the CIA, Mi6 and DGSE.
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Please Cyclefree, that is unladylike. remember the adage:
Men should only weep in war, women should only swear in bed
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
It wasn’t just that Mr Meeks couldn’t accept defeat, it was more that Brexit seemed to make him physically ill, and delirious with loathing
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
That is not quite accurate. He asked 1 poster not to engage with him. That poster promptly engaged with him at which point Mr M said that because this simple request had not been complied with he was off for good.
I take no sides as to who was right or wrong.
I wish he were back. He is an acute observer of politics and other matters.
Michelle Clifford, Europe correspondent of Sky confirming there is disunity in the EU over Russia with Germany and their stance at present
Also confirmed reports of NATO sending arms and troops to eastern Europe including French participation
Just heard a US Senator state on TV that 42% of the German economy is dependent on Russian gas supplies. Stunning (and stunningly stupid on the Germans' part) if so.
I don't think it's quite as bad as that, though if the Russians decided to sell their gas elsewhere (say China) much of western Europe could just about survive on LNG imports, Germany is singularly reliant on piped gas and would have to hope that EU countries are able to pipe them gas from their LNG terminals. There's been a negligent lack of foresight from the German state on energy security, even worse than the UK, which is no great example.
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.
No, it is very specifically ”the English” for a lot of Scot Nats. Of course this is nuts on top of bigotry as “the English” means everyone from a Geordie fireman to a Punjabi stockbroker in Brum to a Jewish doctor in Bristol to a half Caribbean Devonian nurse to the Duke of Westminster to a Cockney gangster in Essex to you and me and God (surely an Englishman)
Nonetheless there is a lurking fear and loathing of “the English”, in toto, in Scot Nattery, even if a specific hatred is reserved for posher English Tory types.
The reason is fecking obvious. A deep seated inferiority complex, painfull to witness. But also highly understandable. The Scots have been whipped by the English for 1000 years and forced to speak the English language. That’s gonna leave scars
Moreover, should Scotland ever achieve Indy (if they get another chance) I’m not sure that would solve it. The Irish still have a deep-rooted Anglophobia born of inferiority complex, it was blatant in early Covid.
At least theirs is more justified, because of the Famine, and unlike the Scots they didn’t eagerly volunteer for the joint British enterprise of Empire, whipping lots of other countries in turn. The Scots did, with gusto.
Until the 1707 Act of Union of course Scotland was England's oldest enemy after the French. The French and Scots often combined against England via the Auld Alliance.
The French also assisted Catholics in Ireland against the British eg at the Battle of the Boyne or Wolfe Tone
No way the French helped the Irish against the British at the Boyne. The British didn't exist as such.
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.
Excellent sneaky accusation of English SNP members being Anglophobes. That sort of sclerotic view is why Lab are just as meh in Scotland polling wise as they've been for a decade despite the Starmer miracle (aka hanging on until everyone realises how shite is BJ).
Is there only one version of the UK, England and Englishness? Who knew?
Genuine question: what percentage of SNP members identify as "English", as opposed to those born in England that claim Scottish descent?
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
You're assuming that only deaths from the virus count, of course.
Not at all. It is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by the disruption to the NHS by high case numbers.
Or it is important to remember the large numbers of deaths caused by social distancing measures etc taken to suppress case numbers.
It's hard to see how those constituted "large" numbers of deaths, but certainly there was a reduction to quality of life and the economy. We agree that lockdowns have costs and should be avoided.
Of course, we also need to remember the lives saved by reduced numbers of deaths from flu and other infectious diseases! It's a complicated picture.
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.
I think it was mainly that Corbs & Co are anti-Western. Basically, they think the wrong side won the Cold War. Not anti-English, per se.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
On a related point this coming crisis is a very good opportunity for Starmer. He and the front bench can be unambiguous in supporting Ukraine, condemning Russia and doing all the right things to support the UK in actions such as, for example, new sanctions. He can look Prime Ministerial, patriotic, solid. Everything Corbyn wasn't (and Boris isn't).
Looking more patriotic that Corbyn is not a big ask, is it? But I agree, it is another chance to consolidate his recent impression of a PM in waiting.
No, its actually being *less* patriotic than Corbyn. To a forgotten version of a foreign country.... Corbyn is quite consistent in his apparent love for the lost days of motorcycle holidays in East Germany.
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
He probably thinks he is being clever. The problem with some reasonably clever people is that they often think they are much cleverer than they actually are. The alternative might be that he is worried he might incriminate himself so needs to get a lawyer to check any response.
It was reported that Cummings was responsible for Downing Street spads
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
I would disregard his own evidence completely on this basis. On the other hand I would still want to look at any documents he produced (although I am beginning to wonder when he will be charged under the Offical Secrets Act about government documentation that he seems to have retained).
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Please Cyclefree, that is unladylike. remember the adage:
Men should only weep in war, women should only swear in bed
My darling - if you worked in my team you would realise how hopeless such an adage would be. How else could we have coped with the stress?
Anyway, if you use such words in bed you're not swearing are you - but instructing, no?! 😉
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
It wasn’t just that Mr Meeks couldn’t accept defeat, it was more that Brexit seemed to make him physically ill, and delirious with loathing
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
😕 sounds terrible.
First rule of politics - learn to live with your defeats.
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.
Much as I enjoy the satire of Judge Dredd, that's a silly comparison. The real police do act to stop crimes taking place. They have to make judgements about when to do that. Likewise, public health actions require judgements to be made.
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
And have done the right thing.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
I like how I spoke of morbidity and mortality, but you turned that into "a bit of morbidity"! You see, I'm unaware of anything that strips away someone's fundamental human rights more than mortality.
Mortality is natural, it doesn't affect your rights. All lives end.
The government taking away our civil liberties is not natural.
But considering you're sharing links to Michie I don't think there's much point discussing this with someone as closed-minded as you are.
"I won't talk to you because you cited someone I don't like" is an odd way to demonstrate someone else's closed-mindedness rather than you're own!
When mortality occurs is affected by government policy. Mortality is not something determined by the Three Fates unrelated to choices made.
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.
Agreed, though there is the serious point on whether the police see the allegations as genuine blackmail. If it is "support the PM or we will out you as gay/ have had liaisons with rent boys/prostitutes etc." then I think that would be blackmail and a criminal offence would have been committed if evidence could be provided. Political coercion where it was inferred your constituency might not be at the front of the queue for "levelling up" funding might not be seen as such.
The irony being the latter is much, much more serious.
It is in some regards, but blackmailing someone for their sexuality (which has been alleged) could also be seen as a hate crime as well as blackmail. I personally think that is even worse than corruption, because it is of course that too.
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.
From confident, you are now sounding uncertain, as the penny drops: has it missed its moment to succeed. (I’m going easy on you but I have already analysed why it failed and I moved on from it days ago. As usual PB will treat my posts as though I am insanely out of touch, and slowly catch up with me to claim they knew this all the time).
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
Already done it. See down thread where I already commented on this former PB analysis (before my time but I gather was arch Remainer who couldn’t accept defeat?)
It wasn’t just that Mr Meeks couldn’t accept defeat, it was more that Brexit seemed to make him physically ill, and delirious with loathing
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
That is not quite accurate. He asked 1 poster not to engage with him. That poster promptly engaged with him at which point Mr M said that because this simple request had not been complied with he was off for good.
I take no sides as to who was right or wrong.
I wish he were back. He is an acute observer of politics and other matters.
I didn’t see it that way (tho I may have missed the particular exchange you reference)
After Brexit he got progressively more unhinged. He would have weeks of remission, then his Strasbourg Syndrome would return in full force, as he spat alarming bile at people, often entirely undeserving. It was not nice to watch. And THEN he would get all haughty if someone was equally disparaging in response, like he was the Queen and someone had heedlessly farted in court
It was wise of him to leave so he could calm down. But, like you, I wish he would return. He is so perceptive, when he’s not shrieking like an affronted Victorian auntie
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Please Cyclefree, that is unladylike. remember the adage:
Men should only weep in war, women should only swear in bed
Though some blokes have been known to greet if there's a tonic shortage.
Michelle Clifford, Europe correspondent of Sky confirming there is disunity in the EU over Russia with Germany and their stance at present
Also confirmed reports of NATO sending arms and troops to eastern Europe including French participation
Just heard a US Senator state on TV that 42% of the German economy is dependent on Russian gas supplies. Stunning (and stunningly stupid on the Germans' part) if so.
I don't think it's quite as bad as that, though if the Russians decided to sell their gas elsewhere (say China) much of western Europe could just about survive on LNG imports, Germany is singularly reliant on piped gas and would have to hope that EU countries are able to pipe them gas from their LNG terminals. There's been a negligent lack of foresight from the German state on energy security, even worse than the UK, which is no great example.
It has been interesting to follow certain German politicians who furiously protested about *other countries* such as Poland building LNG terminals. Apparently LNG is far too dangerous..... Some of the same nice chaps who were all in favour of Nord Stream II
Michelle Clifford, Europe correspondent of Sky confirming there is disunity in the EU over Russia with Germany and their stance at present
Also confirmed reports of NATO sending arms and troops to eastern Europe including French participation
Just heard a US Senator state on TV that 42% of the German economy is dependent on Russian gas supplies. Stunning (and stunningly stupid on the Germans' part) if so.
I don't think it's quite as bad as that, though if the Russians decided to sell their gas elsewhere (say China) much of western Europe could just about survive on LNG imports, Germany is singularly reliant on piped gas and would have to hope that EU countries are able to pipe them gas from their LNG terminals. There's been a negligent lack of foresight from the German state on energy security, even worse than the UK, which is no great example.
Given they removal of Nuclear power on almost a whim, negligent is probably an understatement when talking about Germany and energy security.
Mind you their internet connectivity isn't much better - I remember back in 2019 having conversations about dial-up because nothing else was suitable in some shopping malls (this was an issue so important and so annoying it was brought up by the client in the first project meeting).
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60111141
A lockdown is undoubtedly a very serious step and it's not a choice that should be taken lightly, but if you resist them until the last possible moment, you cause more morbidity, more mortality and more time in lockdown.
The talk of using GDPR to get whips to tell MPs what data they hold in them is a case in point.
Long-standing traditions don't make it acceptable for whips to flout the law.
Beyond all that, there is also the simple calculus of destuctiveness for the West. Because of the nuclear era, it is simply far, far more dangerous for the West to fully engage Russia in 2022 than it was for the rest of Europe to take on the Nazis in 1938. Combined with the awareness that Putin's kleptocracy so far has not shown anything approaching the level of existential danger to Europe as a whole that Hitler was demonstrating, to make such a dangerous course of action essential, these are the reasons why the West, rationally enough, is certainly not going to engage Russia in a full conflict in Ukraine.
Acting earlier, or at all, is inexcusable unless the requirement to lockdown has been completely proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
If that means a longer lockdown may be needed, so be it, at least its been proven to be necessary.
Corbyn is a classic Negative Nationalist.
English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
But let’s not miss that there are other things afoot on what is a big news day. Emmerdale is being moved from its current slot.
And Liz Truss team are styling her brilliantly. If it did come to a leadership election (small chance) you would have to argue substance always triumphs over style, otherwise she’s got it in the bag now.
If you don't resist them until the last possible minute you go in and out of lockdown like a yo-yo unnecessarily. Potentially preventing a bit of morbidity is not an excuse to strip away people's fundamental human rights unnecessarily.
Lockdowns should be a last resort. Better test/trace/isolate, better mask-wearing, better ventilation, all would help, but the UK has often been bad at these. We discussed some of these problems at https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n608
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1485622501862428684?s=21
One wonders what it would take to alarm them…
But the policy of arming Ukraine to make the cost of invasion higher is IMO right, and should be supported by all of Europe.
Ukraine certainly will engage fully with any invasion, whether we help them or not. Helping them in this manner might, just possibly, deter Putin.
What troubles me is those, like Simon Jenkins in the article I linked earlier, arguing 'just give Russia what they want'.
Have a look at this to see why
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/every-conservative-mps-position-on-boris-johnson-and-the-parties-in-number-10-bc4f5f77032f
The government taking away our civil liberties is not natural.
But considering you're sharing links to Michie I don't think there's much point discussing this with someone as closed-minded as you are.
1. Journalists speculating. Or "making stuff up" as it might be termed.
2. The police. I would not be surprised. They have form for this sort of stuff. Remember Andrew Mitchell. I've written before about the unhealthy relationship between the police and the press.
3. Someone on the investigation team. Very very bad form if so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Paris_(1814)
🤣🤣🤣
And how do you know you are achieving that? Surely the main factor it depends how determined or desperate the antagonist is, the very thing you cannot for certain be sure of?
Ukraine disarmed their own nukes because we guaranteed their freedom with our own.
If we renege on those promises as you're so keen it will spark a rush for other nations to develop their own and kill disarmament stone dead.
In your opinion should the report be published in full?
Indeed, they were appalled when it was suggested that they stop it.
Though if Russia takes more of Ukraine, that horse will have definitely been shot.
I wonder what the reaction of the "doves" here will be if the Ukrainian president renounces the treaty and Ukraine becomes a nuclear state again?
I suppose there's a case for saying that the UK should have neither foreign policy nor defence policy, but I think it would be a minority view.
Nonetheless there is a lurking fear and loathing of “the English”, in toto, in Scot Nattery, even if a specific hatred is reserved for posher English Tory types.
The reason is fecking obvious. A deep seated inferiority complex, painfull to witness. But also highly understandable. The Scots have been whipped by the English for 1000 years and forced to speak the English language. That’s gonna leave scars
Moreover, should Scotland ever achieve Indy (if they get another chance) I’m not sure that would solve it. The Irish still have a deep-rooted Anglophobia born of inferiority complex, it was blatant in early Covid.
At least theirs is more justified, because of the Famine, and unlike the Scots they didn’t eagerly volunteer for the joint British enterprise of Empire, whipping lots of other countries in turn. The Scots did, with gusto.
Where do you draw the line where we engage MAD?
Kiev?
Bucharest?
Warsaw?
Budapest?
Prague?
Berlin?
Paris?
London?
The outcome isn't on of them. Indeed, it is arguable that every country that *started* a war since 1870 has lost.
Peace is to be preferred. But the question them becomes - Are *you* prepared to be the price of peace?
Also confirmed reports of NATO sending arms and troops to eastern Europe including French participation
Reading between the lines, French are actually accusing us of bigging the thing up.
The Russians are actually massing on the border in a serious way are they?
Bad bad move. You always interview. Always. And if someone doesn't want to be interviewed in something they claim to be as important as this you view what they tell you with a hugely sceptical eye.
He can't be forced to an interview. But the consequences of him refusing to do so for the investigation should be spelt out.
Frankly I'd be inclined to discount very clearly in the report - in the executive summary - anything he says unless it is clearly corroborated elsewhere by reliable evidence. I would also list out all the unanswered questions and issues I was not able to address as a result of this witness being unwilling to be interviewed.
Where is the line drawn? Or can Putin invade all of that list down to London and you'd still not engage MAD?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/transparency-fears-as-minister-says-sue-gray-findings-will-be-published
Asked if it would be published in full, Zahawi told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “So the terms of reference for Sue Gray’s report is that the findings of her report will be made public, and the prime minister has pledged he will come to parliament to then make a statement and be scrutinised by colleagues on the findings of that report.”...
Watford Gap Service Station?
The Reform Club?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
Mind you, the government has - from one perspective - been amazingly efficient at grouping all these scandals one after the other over the dull winter months and seemingly just in time for a European war followed by seminal elections.
It has all the choreography of a good drama series.
The French also assisted Catholics in Ireland against the British eg at the Battle of the Boyne or Wolfe Tone
Which is a damn shame, as he is super sharp and was a great commenter on PB. He is missed. But note that he removed himself (wisely, for his sanity) - no one chased him off
Is there only one version of the UK, England and Englishness? Who knew?
The idea that schools' funding should be at the disposal of party whips is unconscionable, and quite probably falls under criminal misconduct in a public office.
Dom also implies Boris has some security angle thing hanging over Dom and waiting to use it? What a bizarre twist!
Men should only weep in war, women should only swear in bed
Your problem is called recency bias. It feels to you as if we have always been waiting for Gray to report, therefore we will always be waiting for Gray to report, and nothing will ever change.
At times like this is would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the CIA, Mi6 and DGSE.
I take no sides as to who was right or wrong.
I wish he were back. He is an acute observer of politics and other matters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne
Of course, we also need to remember the lives saved by reduced numbers of deaths from flu and other infectious diseases! It's a complicated picture.
Anyway, if you use such words in bed you're not swearing are you - but instructing, no?! 😉
First rule of politics - learn to live with your defeats.
…and second rule, start plotting your revenge 😈
When mortality occurs is affected by government policy. Mortality is not something determined by the Three Fates unrelated to choices made.
After Brexit he got progressively more unhinged. He would have weeks of remission, then his Strasbourg Syndrome would return in full force, as he spat alarming bile at people, often entirely undeserving. It was not nice to watch. And THEN he would get all haughty if someone was equally disparaging in response, like he was the Queen and someone had heedlessly farted in court
It was wise of him to leave so he could calm down. But, like you, I wish he would return. He is so perceptive, when he’s not shrieking like an affronted Victorian auntie
Agnew alleges Whitehall oversight has been "nothing less than woeful" and "desperately inadequate".
https://www.ft.com/content/805fa759-fabc-4d04-acdf-3616932d2164
Mind you their internet connectivity isn't much better - I remember back in 2019 having conversations about dial-up because nothing else was suitable in some shopping malls (this was an issue so important and so annoying it was brought up by the client in the first project meeting).