I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
I don't see any implied approbation in the comments of 2 minute sex sessions.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Your point 1 is correct(*), but it doesn't address how a new government is formed - and critically, to avoid a GE the new government has to be formed and the Commons has to vote confidence in it within 14 days.
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
Blimey, what did I miss? You wonder off to do a virtual court and....
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The problem there is that if Scotland decides to leave the UK, then we no longer have a UK Government, or even a UK. We have a Scottish government and a WENI government. Obviously, the WENI government has no duty to pick up the tab for the whole lot.
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
I think this is 'it' folks ... domino effect coming up.
Why do I think that? Because Ellwood's right: this can't go on.
The Savile thing – cravenly defended by @Leon yesterday – now looks like a huge tactical misstep as well as an act of gross mendacity and vindictiveness. Trumpian in the extreme.
Surely the last straw? Seems like the defection spiked the "pork pie plot", but the situation is getting worse every day for the Tories. If no action soon, then the Party will really be over for the Tories.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Of course the idea that there has to be a GE if Johnson falls via VONC is utter bollx.
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
Even if Johnson goes an early election is unlikely.
Major waited the full 5 years after replacing Thatcher as PM in 1990 midterm, Brown also waited the full 5 years in the end after replacing Blair in 2007 midterm. Callaghan too waited the full 5 years after replacing Wilson as PM in 1976 in the end.
May did call an early general election in 2017 after replacing Cameron but as we all recall that ended in disaster as she lost her majority
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The problem there is that if Scotland decides to leave the UK, then we no longer have a UK Government, or even a UK. We have a Scottish government and a WENI government. Obviously, the WENI government has no duty to pick up the tab for the whole lot.
Independence campaign - the English will continue to pay your pension Remain - Nope.
Even if the WENI had a duty of to pick it up, any Government doing so would be out at the next election and would never be returning to power.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
It is fucking bonkers. Even Johnson was wise enough to restrict himself to a token effort in Ukraine.
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Many thought the same when Corbyn lost a VONC amongst Labour MPs in 2016.
Yet Labour members re elected him
That doesn't hold at all - Corbyn was always considerably more popular among Labour members than among his MPs, and everyone knew this all along.
The position with the Prime Suspect is precisely the opposite - even among Tory members a very significant minority want him to go now, whereas so far at least the proportion of Tory MPs wanting the same is below 15%.
At the moment I would say at least 45% of Tory MPs want Boris to go, whereas as I posted earlier according to Opinium only 1/3 of Tory members want Boris to go
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Ellwood was quite explicit on C4 News last night that he wanted to send British ground troops immediately to Ukraine, now before any invasion. I think this the most hawkish line taken by any UK MP.
The Scottish Regiment portering in my hospital perhaps...
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
In this case there is a different issue.
NATO troops in Ukraine would be seen as a humiliation by Russian nationalists. Putin might be *less* able to back away from a war.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
Jesus fucking Christ. PB in one of its mewling, prudish moods is so annoying it has forced me to have an enormous vodkatini by the pool, while putting on my sunglasses, so I can disguise the fact I am furtively ogling the French woman in the bikini halfway down the pool
okay Boris may be corroding standards in public life but at least we're getting loads of right wing legislation on [checks notes] net zero and animal sentience
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Of course the idea that there has to be a GE if Johnson falls via VONC is utter bollx.
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
A Parliamentary VONC would result in a General Election - it's unavoidable unless it was quickly followed by a second vote that resulted in a Vote of Confidence following the creation of a new Government (think there is a 7 day window but I can't be bothered to hunt it down).
However, it wouldn't give the Tory party enough time to elect a leader, just enough time to bin Bozo and select a temporary leader who could get Tory MPs to actually vote. So as a plan it doesn't really work,
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
It is fucking bonkers. Even Johnson was wise enough to restrict himself to a token effort in Ukraine.
Do these people not understand psychology? They need to find a way to help him climb down and save face at home, not raise the stakes further.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Only if the Americans will do that, Biden has made clear he will do sanctions but not send US troops to Ukraine
Yes. The Americans would have to do it, because the Europeans aren't able. And it's possible that the Americans are more concerned with keeping free of additional commitments so that they can deter Chinese aggression towards Taiwan than with defending Ukraine.
It's disappointing then that there wasn't a determination from Europe to improve its own defence after 2014. Hopefully we and they will be better prepared for the next time.
Biden won't defend Taiwan either. He is the most isolationist US President since Carter, see also his withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
Unless Putin invades a NATO nation Biden wouldn't act, Trump if he returns as POTUS maybe not even then (though Trump might go to war with China to defend Taiwan unlike Biden). So yes I agree Europe, especially Germany, needs to do more than it is to defend its own backyard
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Of course the idea that there has to be a GE if Johnson falls via VONC is utter bollx.
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
Even if Johnson goes an early election is unlikely.
Major waited the full 5 years after replacing Thatcher as PM in 1990 midterm, Brown also waited the full 5 years in the end after replacing Blair in 2007 midterm. Callaghan too waited the full 5 years after replacing Wilson as PM in 1976 in the end.
May did call an early general election in 2017 after replacing Cameron but as we all recall that ended in disaster as she lost her majority
Yep, I was just saying it would be slightly more likely as, for example, Sunak may dare it as he is riding a wave of relief and honeymoon in polls thanks to ending Johnson's time.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
In terms of sex, yes Tinder is not much help in getting much of it unless you are very good looking. The very rich can always attract lots of women as you say anyway through the attraction of their credit card.
However, if you want a committed relationship and ultimately marriage then sites like eharmony still offer plenty of opportunity for the ordinary looking, as people on those sites are more interested in commitment and personality than looks and a quick one night stand.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
It is fucking bonkers. Even Johnson was wise enough to restrict himself to a token effort in Ukraine.
Do these people not understand psychology? They need to find a way to help him climb down and save face at home, not raise the stakes further.
okay Boris may be corroding standards in public life but at least we're getting loads of right wing legislation on [checks notes] net zero and animal sentience
Cross-referencing that list of PMQs with @AlastairMeeks' list gives us (if I've read it right!) Esther McVey: hostile Caroline Dineage: hostile Virginia Crosbie: neutral Chris Loder: hostile James Grundy: friendly
So it will be interesting to see if Boris's fortunes rise as PMQs develops. I think we can add Keir Starmer and Ian Blackford to the hostile list in the first half, followed by what might be calmer waters.
Just had a very odd spam call. Recorded message obviously. "Attention - this is a recorded message to tell you that your national insurance number has been compromised due to some illegal activity on the northern border of Wales. Press 1 before we take any legal action against you and your national insurance number." Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
Sounds like Big G has taken up hacking and is doing some naughty things with your NI number?
(on reflection, 'Big G' does sound like a bit of a crimelord name, doesn't it?)
I struggle to turn on my pc let alone know how to hack and sadly 'Big G' was coined years ago due to my 6'2 height and 17.5 stone weight
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Many thought the same when Corbyn lost a VONC amongst Labour MPs in 2016.
Yet Labour members re elected him
That doesn't hold at all - Corbyn was always considerably more popular among Labour members than among his MPs, and everyone knew this all along.
The position with the Prime Suspect is precisely the opposite - even among Tory members a very significant minority want him to go now, whereas so far at least the proportion of Tory MPs wanting the same is below 15%.
At the moment I would say at least 45% of Tory MPs want Boris to go, whereas as I posted earlier according to Opinium only 1/3 of Tory members want Boris to go
Yes, but as usual you've changed the question. The issue is "go now". And quite clearly we haven't reached 15% of the MPs, although hopefully it won't be long in getting there.
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
I think this is 'it' folks ... domino effect coming up.
Why do I think that? Because Ellwood's right: this can't go on.
The Savile thing – cravenly defended by @Leon yesterday – now looks like a huge tactical misstep as well as an act of gross mendacity and vindictiveness. Trumpian in the extreme.
I did not “cravenly defend it”. Please find that quote or withdraw your comment. I merely pointed out that Johnson was playing on a known meme however offensive
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Of course the idea that there has to be a GE if Johnson falls via VONC is utter bollx.
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
Even if Johnson goes an early election is unlikely.
Major waited the full 5 years after replacing Thatcher as PM in 1990 midterm, Brown also waited the full 5 years in the end after replacing Blair in 2007 midterm. Callaghan too waited the full 5 years after replacing Wilson as PM in 1976 in the end.
May did call an early general election in 2017 after replacing Cameron but as we all recall that ended in disaster as she lost her majority
Yep, I was just saying it would be slightly more likely as, for example, Sunak may dare it as he is riding a wave of relief and honeymoon in polls thanks to ending Johnson's time.
He may but he would be an idiot to.
Even if Sunak did replace Johnson, the best he could hope for at the next general election is a narrow scrape home a la Major 1992. Lots of Tory MPs would still likely lose their seats (even in 1992 40 Tory MPs lost their seats). However there is still a strong chance even Sunak would see the Tories lose their majority completely and Starmer become PM in a hung parliament, remember too the DUP will not be as helpful to Sunak as they were to May in 2017 unless he invokes Article 16
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Here's a thought, inspired by the talk of VONCs, FTPA and DACOP - the latter implicitly extends the life of the current parliament by ~9 months - under FTPA the next GE is fixed for 2nd May 2024, but once DACOP becomes law automatic dissolution date becomes 17th December 2024 with a general election, presumably, in February or possibly early March 2025. Not sure if this has been really picked up on, or if it has any significance.
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The problem there is that if Scotland decides to leave the UK, then we no longer have a UK Government, or even a UK. We have a Scottish government and a WENI government. Obviously, the WENI government has no duty to pick up the tab for the whole lot.
The WENI government would be claiming successor state status in respect of the UN Security Council seat, for example, and would likely make a statement regarding guarantees for government bonds, so as to be able to continue to sell bonds, so you can see something of an argument for it inheriting the Pension liabilities.
However it doesn't seem credible to me, and would appear to be an easy way to lose a referendum campaign. On the one side the SNP say that all Scottish Pensions will continue to be paid by Westminster. On the other side, every Westminster politician says no. It contradicts common sense (which is that an independent Scotland would pay for pensions to Scottish pensioners).
How is anyone with more than a decade of accrued pension rights going to vote in a referendum?
Vote for Independence and lose your State Pension seems like a losing campaign slogan to me.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
It is quite interesting that despite everything, a majority on here seems to think that, on Ukraine, the current policy is a fairly good one.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
Cross-referencing that list of PMQs with @AlastairMeeks' list gives us (if I've read it right!) Esther McVey: hostile Caroline Dineage: hostile Virginia Crosbie: neutral Chris Loder: hostile James Grundy: friendly
So it will be interesting to see if Boris's fortunes rise as PMQs develops. I think we can add Keir Starmer and Ian Blackford to the hostile list in the first half, followed by what might be calmer waters.
Can think of many words to describe Desmond Swayne...
Can those on here critical of Boris Johnson please desist in calling him by his preferred cuddly stage name "Boris". Under the circumstances "Boris Johnson" "Mr Johnson" or preferably simply "Johnson" would seem far more appropriate. He is not a lovable uncle, a music hall comedian or the old fool down the pub, he is supposed to be the Prime Minister.
He is a malevolent politician, he is not our friend.
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The problem there is that if Scotland decides to leave the UK, then we no longer have a UK Government, or even a UK. We have a Scottish government and a WENI government. Obviously, the WENI government has no duty to pick up the tab for the whole lot.
Not sure that's right. If you simply say that Scotland has seceded then the UK continues, albeit down 5m folk - mostly white, mostly old, wondering what's gonna happen to my pension.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
Here's a thought, inspired by the talk of VONCs, FTPA and DACOP - the latter implicitly extends the life of the current parliament by ~9 months - under FTPA the next GE is fixed for 2nd May 2024, but once DACOP becomes law automatic dissolution date becomes 17th December 2024 with a general election, presumably, in February or possibly early March 2025. Not sure if this has been really picked up on, or if it has any significance.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
Here's a thought, inspired by the talk of VONCs, FTPA and DACOP - the latter implicitly extends the life of the current parliament by ~9 months - under FTPA the next GE is fixed for 2nd May 2024, but once DACOP becomes law automatic dissolution date becomes 17th December 2024 with a general election, presumably, in February or possibly early March 2025. Not sure if this has been really picked up on, or if it has any significance.
DACOP?
Sorry, an acronym I'm trying to get established because I can't be arsed to keep typing "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill/Act"
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
It is quite interesting that despite everything, a majority on here seems to think that, on Ukraine, the current policy is a fairly good one.
Perhaps more a case of no clearly better policies available, rather than it being a good one. We are left with only poor choices to choose from because we have allowed the West to be divided. Putin has played a blinder slowly dismantling Western democracy the last decade.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
It is quite interesting that despite everything, a majority on here seems to think that, on Ukraine, the current policy is a fairly good one.
Yes, it is, and one supported by all parties, except a few radicals at either end. Bipartisan in America too, apart from pro-putin Republican social media.
Just had a very odd spam call. Recorded message obviously. "Attention - this is a recorded message to tell you that your national insurance number has been compromised due to some illegal activity on the northern border of Wales. Press 1 before we take any legal action against you and your national insurance number." Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
Sounds like Big G has taken up hacking and is doing some naughty things with your NI number?
(on reflection, 'Big G' does sound like a bit of a crimelord name, doesn't it?)
I struggle to turn on my pc let alone know how to hack and sadly 'Big G' was coined years ago due to my 6'2 height and 17.5 stone weight
I suspect that is what any North Walian Don worth his salt would claim!
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Well, it would be useful for them to have the Russian side demilitarised too!
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
In principle I agree, but then I remember photographs of papers being waved at Heston Aerodrome nearly 75 years ago, and that didn't end well.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
The nuclear angle is under-discussed - except here, I haven't seen any reference to the quid pro quo when Ukraine gave up its nukes at the dissolution of the USSR.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
Ukraine is one of the few countries to have willingly given up nuclear weapons. Allowing them to be dismembered by Russia creates a terrible precedent that every other nuclear-capable state will have noted.
In other matters, I am stuck at home with Rona and watching Bedknobs and Broomsticks with the kid, who is quite interested in the idea of all the children going on trains to stay safely in the countryside. Does anyone know how I’d find out if my house was used in the WW2 evacuation of children? Rural Kent.
There is the 1939 Register, now on ancestry.co.uk - a kind of emergency census. But quite early on, end Sept 1939; might catch the first wave of evacuees? And anyone who might still be alive today is blanked out. There was no 1941 census, alas (but it wouldn't be accessible for another 20 years anyway).
It caught the first wave of evacuees. I found relatives in unexpected places; a teacher aunt 60 miles from the port-town school where she taught in 1938, a 16 year old uncle 100 miles from home. I'd often wondered how he'd formed a friendship with the chap he did, and the evacuation details explained it.
Thanks both will let you know if I strike lucky!
You may not find the house by its name, but ancestry don't charge by entry, and the books are like censuses, the enumerator went through it place by place, one can follow where he/she walked. So what you do is to enter a common local surname without first name and the right village, and then try and get a hit for near your house. Then you can leaf to and fro in the enumeration books on screen till you get there ...
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
While I take Leon as a sometimes amusing troll with whom it's unwise to engage too deeply, I do sympathise with Cyclefree's annoyance that her deadly serious header prompted a series of posts about blokes having rubbish sex, and hope it won't discourage some further excellent headers.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
It is quite interesting that despite everything, a majority on here seems to think that, on Ukraine, the current policy is a fairly good one.
Yes, it is, and one supported by all parties, except a few radicals at either end. Bipartisan in America too, apart from pro-putin Republican social media.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
Which is the greater insult to the mind’s eye, JM & Edwina or BJ & Nutnut making the beast with two backs? The latter I guess as it’s still goin’ on.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
Which is the greater insult to the mind’s eye, JM & Edwina or BJ & Nutnut making the beast with two backs? The latter I guess as it’s still goin’ on.
In other matters, I am stuck at home with Rona and watching Bedknobs and Broomsticks with the kid, who is quite interested in the idea of all the children going on trains to stay safely in the countryside. Does anyone know how I’d find out if my house was used in the WW2 evacuation of children? Rural Kent.
There is the 1939 Register, now on ancestry.co.uk - a kind of emergency census. But quite early on, end Sept 1939; might catch the first wave of evacuees? And anyone who might still be alive today is blanked out. There was no 1941 census, alas (but it wouldn't be accessible for another 20 years anyway).
It caught the first wave of evacuees. I found relatives in unexpected places; a teacher aunt 60 miles from the port-town school where she taught in 1938, a 16 year old uncle 100 miles from home. I'd often wondered how he'd formed a friendship with the chap he did, and the evacuation details explained it.
Thanks both will let you know if I strike lucky!
You may not find the house by its name, but ancestry don't charge by entry, and the books are like censuses, the enumerator went through it place by place, one can follow where he/she walked. So what you do is to enter a common local surname without first name and the right village, and then try and get a hit for near your house. Then you can leaf to and fro in the enumeration books on screen till you get there ...
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
While I take Leon as a sometimes amusing troll with whom it's unwise to engage too deeply, I do sympathise with Cyclefree's annoyance that her deadly serious header prompted a series of posts about blokes having rubbish sex, and hope it won't discourage some further excellent headers.
I haven’t read the whole thread, has Leon added rubbish sex correspondent to his quiverful of areas of expertise?
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
Yes, I would have thought the worst case scenario for Putin is another Afghanistan: an expensive multi-year insurgent war with well supplied Ukrainian militias that keep sending Russians home in body bags while the Rouble plummets and Nordstream 2 gets put on indefinite ice. Not NATO sending in conventional forces, which would be overreach and stupid.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
While I take Leon as a sometimes amusing troll with whom it's unwise to engage too deeply, I do sympathise with Cyclefree's annoyance that her deadly serious header prompted a series of posts about blokes having rubbish sex, and hope it won't discourage some further excellent headers.
Cyclefree has never struck me as the type to be dissuaded from commenting by random off topic gibberish
Tho let it be noted that the whole debate was not started by me, but by Russia, accusing Boris of being some beta male in thrall to his young wife. And off we went…
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Your point 1 is correct(*), but it doesn't address how a new government is formed - and critically, to avoid a GE the new government has to be formed and the Commons has to vote confidence in it within 14 days.
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.
What Boris does after losing a VONC is immaterial. The mere fact he has lost a VONC means he will not be able to command a majority of Parliament going forward even whilst remaining as leader of the Tory party. And faced with the choice between a GE in which many of them would lose their seats and getting a new leader, the vast majority of Tory MPs will have no compunction about pushing his arse out of the window.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
Agree.
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Your point 1 is correct(*), but it doesn't address how a new government is formed - and critically, to avoid a GE the new government has to be formed and the Commons has to vote confidence in it within 14 days.
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.
What Boris does after losing a VONC is immaterial. The mere fact he has lost a VONC means he will not be able to command a majority of Parliament going forward even whilst remaining as leader of the Tory party. And faced with the choice between a GE in which many of them would lose their seats and getting a new leader, the vast majority of Tory MPs will have no compunction about pushing his arse out of the window.
How could they be certain of doing it in time? Let's say that a party VONC swiftly follows a Commons VONC - do they crown a new leader who goes to the Palace, wins a Commons VONC and then promptly resigns forcing a full leadership election - or does the Palace invite Raab as Deputy (or AN Other) to be PM and win a Commons vote without first being party leader?
The 14 day clock is a big worry - and will be for about the next three weeks.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
Ukraine is one of the few countries to have willingly given up nuclear weapons. Allowing them to be dismembered by Russia creates a terrible precedent that every other nuclear-capable state will have noted.
I would expect to (about 60% confident) that in the event of a successful land grab by Putin, that Ukraine goes nuclear.
The mythology that "civil plutonium" is not weapons grade is that. A myth. This is why the US and other countries tried quite hard to shut down reprocessing of reactor fuel.
When fuel rods come out of the reactor, about 20% of the plutonium is Pu-240. This is a very radioactive isotope - literally makes it hot. Among other things a weapon made from that would be generating 100 watts of heat - it would need active cooling. Then there is the pre-detonation thing.
BUT
1) The US tested a device using 20%+ Pu-240. 2) Pu-240 decays to U-236 with half live of 7 years. So 20% becomes 10% in 7 years. 20% becomes 2.5% in 21 years. So if the fuel rods are 20 years old, when they are re-processed, the chemistry will remove all the Uranium, leaving the Plutonium. Which is nearly all Pu-239, now.....
Every power station cooling pond, around the world, full of old rods.....
There appears to be 10 MPs who have publicly stated that Big Clown doesn't have their support. Does anyone recall the number of public calls when TMay reached the VONC threshold?
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
While I take Leon as a sometimes amusing troll with whom it's unwise to engage too deeply, I do sympathise with Cyclefree's annoyance that her deadly serious header prompted a series of posts about blokes having rubbish sex, and hope it won't discourage some further excellent headers.
Cyclefree has never struck me as the type to be dissuaded from commenting by random off topic gibberish
Tho let it be noted that the whole debate was not started by me, but by Russia, accusing Boris of being some beta male in thrall to his young wife. And off we went…
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
It is quite interesting that despite everything, a majority on here seems to think that, on Ukraine, the current policy is a fairly good one.
Yes, it is, and one supported by all parties, except a few radicals at either end. Bipartisan in America too, apart from pro-putin Republican social media.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
Yes, I would have thought the worst case scenario for Putin is another Afghanistan: an expensive multi-year insurgent war with well supplied Ukrainian militias that keep sending Russians home in body bags while the Rouble plummets and Nordstream 2 gets put on indefinite ice. Not NATO sending in conventional forces, which would be overreach and stupid.
I think that is the Western strategy. Convince Putin of an Afghanistan plus massive sanctions and then provide him with some kind of facesave. The latter is essential.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
Ukraine is one of the few countries to have willingly given up nuclear weapons. Allowing them to be dismembered by Russia creates a terrible precedent that every other nuclear-capable state will have noted.
I would expect to (about 60% confident) that in the event of a successful land grab by Putin, that Ukraine goes nuclear.
The mythology that "civil plutonium" is not weapons grade is that. A myth. This is why the US and other countries tried quite hard to shut down reprocessing of reactor fuel.
When fuel rods come out of the reactor, about 20% of the plutonium is Pu-240. This is a very radioactive isotope - literally makes it hot. Among other things a weapon made from that would be generating 100 watts of heat - it would need active cooling. Then there is the pre-detonation thing.
BUT
1) The US tested a device using 20%+ Pu-240. 2) Pu-240 decays to U-236 with half live of 7 years. So 20% becomes 10% in 7 years. 20% becomes 2.5% in 21 years. So if the fuel rods are 20 years old, when they are re-processed, the chemistry will remove all the Uranium, leaving the Plutonium. Which is nearly all Pu-239, now.....
Every power station cooling pond, around the world, full of old rods.....
According to one article linked to from here, one of the reasons for the timing now is that Ukraine in a few years time will likely have more offensive capability. As I understand it, Ukraine doesn't currently have any missiles with the range to hit Moscow, for example (which also reduces the effectiveness of any future nuclear deterrent).
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
Yes, I would have thought the worst case scenario for Putin is another Afghanistan: an expensive multi-year insurgent war with well supplied Ukrainian militias that keep sending Russians home in body bags while the Rouble plummets and Nordstream 2 gets put on indefinite ice. Not NATO sending in conventional forces, which would be overreach and stupid.
I think that is the Western strategy. Convince Putin of an Afghanistan plus massive sanctions and then provide him with some kind of facesave. The latter is essential.
The obvious facesave is to open NordStream 2. Can't think what else there would be and whether it would be enough for Putin.
Doesn't make the future much better for Europe or Ukraine either.
Just had a very odd spam call. Recorded message obviously. "Attention - this is a recorded message to tell you that your national insurance number has been compromised due to some illegal activity on the northern border of Wales. Press 1 before we take any legal action against you and your national insurance number." Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
Sounds like Big G has taken up hacking and is doing some naughty things with your NI number?
(on reflection, 'Big G' does sound like a bit of a crimelord name, doesn't it?)
I struggle to turn on my pc let alone know how to hack and sadly 'Big G' was coined years ago due to my 6'2 height and 17.5 stone weight
I suspect that is what any North Walian Don worth his salt would claim!
Don Corblimey. You can't move a single daffodil in North Wales without paying him some "respect".....
Politics Live is unwatchable, because as soon as some politics happens (like Hoyle's statement to the House) Coburn interrupts and talks over the top of it.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
When it comes to demilitarisation, the Ukraine has practically zero offensive capability. Why should they have a DMZ inside their own country?
Because there is absolutely fuck all we can do to stop it?
And what if the Ukraine decides that their version of de-escalation includes a bit of chemistry with spent fuel rods?
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
Ukraine is one of the few countries to have willingly given up nuclear weapons. Allowing them to be dismembered by Russia creates a terrible precedent that every other nuclear-capable state will have noted.
I would expect to (about 60% confident) that in the event of a successful land grab by Putin, that Ukraine goes nuclear.
The mythology that "civil plutonium" is not weapons grade is that. A myth. This is why the US and other countries tried quite hard to shut down reprocessing of reactor fuel.
When fuel rods come out of the reactor, about 20% of the plutonium is Pu-240. This is a very radioactive isotope - literally makes it hot. Among other things a weapon made from that would be generating 100 watts of heat - it would need active cooling. Then there is the pre-detonation thing.
BUT
1) The US tested a device using 20%+ Pu-240. 2) Pu-240 decays to U-236 with half live of 7 years. So 20% becomes 10% in 7 years. 20% becomes 2.5% in 21 years. So if the fuel rods are 20 years old, when they are re-processed, the chemistry will remove all the Uranium, leaving the Plutonium. Which is nearly all Pu-239, now.....
Every power station cooling pond, around the world, full of old rods.....
According to one article linked to from here, one of the reasons for the timing now is that Ukraine in a few years time will likely have more offensive capability. As I understand it, Ukraine doesn't currently have any missiles with the range to hit Moscow, for example (which also reduces the effectiveness of any future nuclear deterrent).
Part of the issue is that it is intolerable, in Greater Russian Nationalism for neighbours not to be subservient to Russia.
Your basic 19th cent Prussian mentality. "We must reduce France to impotence" etc etc
Comments
Thought he'd have been kept inside for that!
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.
https://mobile.twitter.com/maitlis/status/1488512467667980294
@maitlis
I have deleted my earlier retweet of the below and would like to apologise for the hurt I have caused
The below being a further retweet of
@RoryStewartUK
The sheer tawdry Trumpian shabbiness of the whole thing - it is difficult to see how much more of this the party or our political system can survive.
Naughty, but.
Major waited the full 5 years after replacing Thatcher as PM in 1990 midterm, Brown also waited the full 5 years in the end after replacing Blair in 2007 midterm. Callaghan too waited the full 5 years after replacing Wilson as PM in 1976 in the end.
May did call an early general election in 2017 after replacing Cameron but as we all recall that ended in disaster as she lost her majority
Remain - Nope.
Even if the WENI had a duty of to pick it up, any Government doing so would be out at the next election and would never be returning to power.
The Scottish Regiment portering in my hospital perhaps...
NATO troops in Ukraine would be seen as a humiliation by Russian nationalists. Putin might be *less* able to back away from a war.
It’s YOUR FAULT
https://twitter.com/declamare/status/1488819268167036928?s=21
However, it wouldn't give the Tory party enough time to elect a leader, just enough time to bin Bozo and select a temporary leader who could get Tory MPs to actually vote. So as a plan it doesn't really work,
Unless Putin invades a NATO nation Biden wouldn't act, Trump if he returns as POTUS maybe not even then (though Trump might go to war with China to defend Taiwan unlike Biden). So yes I agree Europe, especially Germany, needs to do more than it is to defend its own backyard
However, if you want a committed relationship and ultimately marriage then sites like eharmony still offer plenty of opportunity for the ordinary looking, as people on those sites are more interested in commitment and personality than looks and a quick one night stand.
Esther McVey: hostile
Caroline Dineage: hostile
Virginia Crosbie: neutral
Chris Loder: hostile
James Grundy: friendly
Ian Levy: cool
Desmond Swayne: cool
Henry Smith: cool
Simon Jupp: unknown
Mark Eastwood: neutral
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/
So it will be interesting to see if Boris's fortunes rise as PMQs develops. I think we can add Keir Starmer and Ian Blackford to the hostile list in the first half, followed by what might be calmer waters.
Tut
Even if Sunak did replace Johnson, the best he could hope for at the next general election is a narrow scrape home a la Major 1992. Lots of Tory MPs would still likely lose their seats (even in 1992 40 Tory MPs lost their seats). However there is still a strong chance even Sunak would see the Tories lose their majority completely and Starmer become PM in a hung parliament, remember too the DUP will not be as helpful to Sunak as they were to May in 2017 unless he invokes Article 16
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
However it doesn't seem credible to me, and would appear to be an easy way to lose a referendum campaign. On the one side the SNP say that all Scottish Pensions will continue to be paid by Westminster. On the other side, every Westminster politician says no. It contradicts common sense (which is that an independent Scotland would pay for pensions to Scottish pensioners).
How is anyone with more than a decade of accrued pension rights going to vote in a referendum?
Vote for Independence and lose your State Pension seems like a losing campaign slogan to me.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/02/russia-ukraine-war-biden/621422/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
When we talk about the inadvisability of pushing Putin in a corner, we should not forget the Ukrainians also have a stake here. Push them too far and *everything* is possible.
If now isn't the time for the quid, when is?
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
“He’s a mate, but he’s wrong.”
Also asked Michael Gove if he’ll run for leader of Boris Johnson goes:
“No.”
We’ve heard that one before.
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1488807211904253954
Mind you Govey has no chance, he is famous for parties and drug abuse and being a mate of dom, not really what's needed to stay the ship just now.
Tho let it be noted that the whole debate was not started by me, but by Russia, accusing Boris of being some beta male in thrall to his young wife. And off we went…
https://news.sky.com/story/levelling-up-government-to-publish-12-missions-in-blueprint-for-spreading-opportunity-across-the-uk-12530256
The 14 day clock is a big worry - and will be for about the next three weeks.
The mythology that "civil plutonium" is not weapons grade is that. A myth. This is why the US and other countries tried quite hard to shut down reprocessing of reactor fuel.
When fuel rods come out of the reactor, about 20% of the plutonium is Pu-240. This is a very radioactive isotope - literally makes it hot. Among other things a weapon made from that would be generating 100 watts of heat - it would need active cooling. Then there is the pre-detonation thing.
BUT
1) The US tested a device using 20%+ Pu-240.
2) Pu-240 decays to U-236 with half live of 7 years. So 20% becomes 10% in 7 years. 20% becomes 2.5% in 21 years. So if the fuel rods are 20 years old, when they are re-processed, the chemistry will remove all the Uranium, leaving the Plutonium. Which is nearly all Pu-239, now.....
Every power station cooling pond, around the world, full of old rods.....
Doesn't make the future much better for Europe or Ukraine either.
Bercow would have been straight in there when it happened
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2022/02/starmer-and-savile-this-failure-occured-on-his-watch-and-was-therefore-ultimately-his-responsibility.html
As the author says, if Starmer had nothing to apologise for re Saville, why did he apologise?
Johnson looks bemused and quizzical.
But does Mr Johnson apologise for what happened in his department? Oh no dear me.
Your basic 19th cent Prussian mentality. "We must reduce France to impotence" etc etc