1) At the forthcoming PB gathering, would anyone be interested in thoughts on Cheltenham - a kind of mini-preview section during the evening? I'd be happy to offer my thoughts to help you with the ones to lay at all costs.
Could we cover other sports (football, rugby u, snooker etc) and forthcoming betting opportunities as well as suggest other political markets for Shadsy - number of elected Conservative Councillors in London, number of Boroughs under majority control of Con, Lab, LD etc.
2) Out and about on yet another sunny if crisp London winter Saturday. Canary Wharf busy but able to get a quiet corner at my favourite coffee emporium. Plenty of people with pushchairs suggesting (perhaps) some of the demographic speculation around the virus might be misplaced. A real sense finally of the virus having passed and life adjusting to the new normalities.
I saw a few people who were obviously working and of course hybrid working shouldn't just mean Monday-Friday. We should be thinking of work in different ways and there may be those for whom working in the office at weekends might be an option. It will be interesting if thinking around employers adapts to this evolution in working habits.
Obvious gaps in Canary Wharf retail but good to see the eateries at Crossrail Place doing well - I shall have to remind Mrs Stodge of a few revisits in the next couple of months. Mask wearing on the tube patchy - on some parts of a train almost total compliance, on other parts of the same train almost complete non-compliance. It's an interesting phenomenon which I've only just recognised - those wanting to wear masks gravitate to/ those parts of the train where the majority are wearing them and vice versa.
Ignore the talk of the greatest growth since the second world war: that’s just a function of the economy having collapsed so badly in 2020. Note instead the Bank of England’s forecast of 1.25% growth in 2023, falling to just 1% in 2024. David Smith, economics editor of the Sunday Times and no remoaner fanatic, puts that down partly to Covid but partly to the “adverse fiscal consequences of leaving the EU”, which left the country “with a budget hole that has had to be filled with higher taxes. We now have a high-tax economy strangled by red tape and hampered by trade restrictions..
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs: RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Ignore the crappy scale, but see what has happened to Ukrainian money since 2014.
Awesome for me going there on holiday and buying $1 beers, not so awesome for those living there buying close to $2/litre petrol. Most of the people who live in my wife’s home city, can’t afford to get a $60 taxi 150km to Kiev airport, let alone a flight to anywhere.
What’s your read on the ordinary Ukrainian view?
One other thing I’ve noticed is that Russia is now an exporter of grain, and one of (if not the world’s leading) supplier of wheat.
It’s possible Putin just wants Ukraine’s wheat production - which, with investment, should be the world’s largest - which is concentrated in the east and south.
Or, he wants to stop it becoming part of the EU order.
Good question. There’s dozens of different views coming from Russian and Ukranian forums, and to be honest I’ve given up listening to wifey, as much as she has given up trying to understand the whole thing.
I’m not sure that grain and wheat come into it too much, they’re secondary considerations. I guess in Putin’s dreams, he can starve the EU of food as well as gas.
What’s clear though, is that Putin sees Ukraine as within the Russian ‘sphere’, if not Russian territory, and very much dislikes any suggestion that the EU and NATO might come closer to his border. He’s also desparate for domestic wins after the pandemic, which has been brutal for Russia.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I think making comparisons with 1992-97 is a mistake. Things that are different:
1. Inflation, and possibly interest rates, are rising. Back then we were going into a very benign set of economic conditions.
2. The dividing lines in politics are different. They are less about economics and more about culture, though maybe that will change as inflation bites.
3. The public finances are a mess.
4. Scotland.
That’s not to say that the Tories aren’t in trouble, just that we shouldn’t view everything through the prism of the past.
The Tories should do well in tonight's opinium poll - a Labour lead of merely 2-4% is quite likely.
Boris Johnson's recovery continues.
Where is the evidence for this "recovery" as you call it? The most recent polls continue to show a solid Labour lead and I can't think of anything the Prime Minister has said or done which warrants a "recovery".
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs: RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
Start with your requirements, then look at where to buy that specific device.
There used to be a really good company laptopshop.co.uk but it seems they are no longer around. Scan.co.uk in Bolton are really good, but more orientated to desktops rather than laptops.
Get at least 16GB RAM, and Windows 10 rather than Windows 11. Laptops are now pretty much not upgradeable, so buy the most expensive one you can afford.
PM me if you want to go through in much more detail, happy to help. I do IT procurement for a day job.
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs: RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
MD, I said earlier I buy used top of the range Lenovo Thinkpads from ebay, refurbished with 1 year warranty. Never been disappointed and you are getting a real business machine. You will get a good one cheaper than consumer machine new.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Ignore the crappy scale, but see what has happened to Ukrainian money since 2014.
Awesome for me going there on holiday and buying $1 beers, not so awesome for those living there buying close to $2/litre petrol. Most of the people who live in my wife’s home city, can’t afford to get a $60 taxi 150km to Kiev airport, let alone a flight to anywhere.
What’s your read on the ordinary Ukrainian view?
One other thing I’ve noticed is that Russia is now an exporter of grain, and one of (if not the world’s leading) supplier of wheat.
It’s possible Putin just wants Ukraine’s wheat production - which, with investment, should be the world’s largest - which is concentrated in the east and south.
Or, he wants to stop it becoming part of the EU order.
Good question. There’s dozens of different views coming from Russian and Ukranian forums, and to be honest I’ve given up listening to wifey, as much as she has given up trying to understand the whole thing.
I’m not sure that grain and wheat come into it too much, they’re secondary considerations. I guess in Putin’s dreams, he can starve the EU of food as well as gas.
What’s clear though, is that Putin sees Ukraine as within the Russian ‘sphere’, if not Russian territory, and very much dislikes any suggestion that the EU and NATO might come closer to his border. He’s also desparate for domestic wins after the pandemic, which has been brutal for Russia.
I was Kyiv last weekend and formed the very clear impression that in event of a full scale invasion and occupation that Putin would face resistance on a scale comparable to Afghanistan post Soviet invasion.....probably with same end result.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Great analysis. Of course it is, as it confirms my own views
1) At the forthcoming PB gathering, would anyone be interested in thoughts on Cheltenham - a kind of mini-preview section during the evening? I'd be happy to offer my thoughts to help you with the ones to lay at all costs.
Could we cover other sports (football, rugby u, snooker etc) and forthcoming betting opportunities as well as suggest other political markets for Shadsy - number of elected Conservative Councillors in London, number of Boroughs under majority control of Con, Lab, LD etc.
2) Out and about on yet another sunny if crisp London winter Saturday. Canary Wharf busy but able to get a quiet corner at my favourite coffee emporium. Plenty of people with pushchairs suggesting (perhaps) some of the demographic speculation around the virus might be misplaced. A real sense finally of the virus having passed and life adjusting to the new normalities.
I saw a few people who were obviously working and of course hybrid working shouldn't just mean Monday-Friday. We should be thinking of work in different ways and there may be those for whom working in the office at weekends might be an option. It will be interesting if thinking around employers adapts to this evolution in working habits.
Obvious gaps in Canary Wharf retail but good to see the eateries at Crossrail Place doing well - I shall have to remind Mrs Stodge of a few revisits in the next couple of months. Mask wearing on the tube patchy - on some parts of a train almost total compliance, on other parts of the same train almost complete non-compliance. It's an interesting phenomenon which I've only just recognised - those wanting to wear masks gravitate to/ those parts of the train where the majority are wearing them and vice versa.
As the end carriages are no longer available for smoking maybe they could be reserved for mask-wearing instead?
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
I certainly hope you're right. But, I do fear this is the real deal, and that Putin underestimates the risks he is taking.
@Cicero - thanks for your thoughts. How is morale in Estonia? There's a sizeable Russian ethnic minority there, is that a possible pretext for Kremlin trouble-making ?
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
I hope that this analysis turns out to be correct. However, past experience with Putin and Russia is that we are always hearing that they are in a worse position than ever turns out to be the case. It is true that NATO seems to have put up a united front, not sure how long that would last were it to actually have to engage the Russians.
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs: RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
Start with your requirements, then look at where to buy that specific device.
There used to be a really good company laptopshop.co.uk but it seems they are no longer around. Scan.co.uk in Bolton are really good, but more orientated to desktops rather than laptops.
Get at least 16GB RAM, and Windows 10 rather than Windows 11. Laptops are now pretty much not upgradeable, so buy the most expensive one you can afford.
PM me if you want to go through in much more detail, happy to help. I do IT procurement for a day job.
And (as last time) I'd add easy battery replaceability. This was a disaster in my Microsoft Surface PC of the original model, whose battery was glued in and is now failing; it is otherwise a very nice computer indeed, which I'd much rather keep running. The DIY videos on Youtube were an eye-opener, something silly like 46 steps and high risk of serious damage, and although the No 4 variant now available seems quite a bit better, I went for a Lenovo instead.
Worth considering if you (ie Mr D) want one with a touchscreen and stylus.
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs: RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
Start with your requirements, then look at where to buy that specific device.
There used to be a really good company laptopshop.co.uk but it seems they are no longer around. Scan.co.uk in Bolton are really good, but more orientated to desktops rather than laptops.
Get at least 16GB RAM, and Windows 10 rather than Windows 11. Laptops are now pretty much not upgradeable, so buy the most expensive one you can afford.
PM me if you want to go through in much more detail, happy to help. I do IT procurement for a day job.
I'd wonder what is meant by "use it for art" because word processing and browsing could be done on anything at all, but possibly good keyboard "feel" is desirable for a pro.
Friendly words for UK foreign secretary over her Ukraine diplomacy from her US counterpart after a frosty reception from Russia. @SecBlinken says he appreciates “her strong coordination with the US, allies & partners to deter Russia’s escalation”.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Its Putin own fault that he is in a position where he has no easy exit. There is a myth that the guy is some kind of all action man combined with chess master genius but strategically he is poor. Tactically , he can play the game very well. That the collective West (Germany cant be trusted and where are Italy these days?) have made a stand is years late but it may have arrived just in time.
1) At the forthcoming PB gathering, would anyone be interested in thoughts on Cheltenham - a kind of mini-preview section during the evening? I'd be happy to offer my thoughts to help you with the ones to lay at all costs.
Could we cover other sports (football, rugby u, snooker etc) and forthcoming betting opportunities as well as suggest other political markets for Shadsy - number of elected Conservative Councillors in London, number of Boroughs under majority control of Con, Lab, LD etc.
2) Out and about on yet another sunny if crisp London winter Saturday. Canary Wharf busy but able to get a quiet corner at my favourite coffee emporium. Plenty of people with pushchairs suggesting (perhaps) some of the demographic speculation around the virus might be misplaced. A real sense finally of the virus having passed and life adjusting to the new normalities.
I saw a few people who were obviously working and of course hybrid working shouldn't just mean Monday-Friday. We should be thinking of work in different ways and there may be those for whom working in the office at weekends might be an option. It will be interesting if thinking around employers adapts to this evolution in working habits.
Obvious gaps in Canary Wharf retail but good to see the eateries at Crossrail Place doing well - I shall have to remind Mrs Stodge of a few revisits in the next couple of months. Mask wearing on the tube patchy - on some parts of a train almost total compliance, on other parts of the same train almost complete non-compliance. It's an interesting phenomenon which I've only just recognised - those wanting to wear masks gravitate to/ those parts of the train where the majority are wearing them and vice versa.
When I was there recently i noticed the huge building work going on opposite the tube station, where the electronic news display used to be.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Its Putin own fault that he is in a position where he has no easy exit. There is a myth that the guy is some kind of all action man combined with chess master genius but strategically he is poor. Tactically , he can play the game very well. That the collective West (Germany cant be trusted and where are Italy these days?) have made a stand is years late but it may have arrived just in time.
Domestically, would it be much of a climbdown for Putin? If the Russian people think (because they have been told) it is just an exercise, and Ukraine has not joined Nato, then what is the downside?
Friendly words for UK foreign secretary over her Ukraine diplomacy from her US counterpart after a frosty reception from Russia. @SecBlinken says he appreciates “her strong coordination with the US, allies & partners to deter Russia’s escalation”.
Mr. JohnL, I was thinking of something like GIMP or Photoshop to have a crack at turning pencil sketches into something with digital painting or suchlike.
I can never see that photo of Sunak without thinking of those images where they changed the gender of the cabinet.
I have no problem with how camp and metrosexual he is.
I hadn't noticed either attribute. He just looked funny as a woman - didn't suit him. Unlike Gavin Williamson, who looked disturbingly good, and Priti Patel who looked good having journeyed the other way.
A clammy thaw here in Tallinn, which means that the soft ground of the Pripyat marshes, 600 miles south of here are also getting more difficult for armoured columns to get across. The "exercises" are scheduled to end next Sunday, so this is the critical week.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Its Putin own fault that he is in a position where he has no easy exit. There is a myth that the guy is some kind of all action man combined with chess master genius but strategically he is poor. Tactically , he can play the game very well. That the collective West (Germany cant be trusted and where are Italy these days?) have made a stand is years late but it may have arrived just in time.
Domestically, would it be much of a climbdown for Putin? If the Russian people think (because they have been told) it is just an exercise, and Ukraine has not joined Nato, then what is the downside?
Based on the demands put on the table, he has got nothing so its not going to look good. The one win he could claim that probably wouldn't result in bloodshed is a formalisation of the de-facto annexation of the occupied Donbas and the absorption into Russia. The Duma looks to be providing cover for that over the next lot of days. That wasn't on the list presented to the collective West but its something.
If there is going to be military action, the next 7 days has been given the highest percentage rating. Sundays are always interesting and next Wednesday is, reportedly, the highest rated day that has been circulated in Washington.
@Cicero That's a good analysis imo and I think your Option 3 is what will happen. Putin gets something but its value is less than it has cost. Which is the key thing - since it means the aggression hasn't paid off.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
Ignore the talk of the greatest growth since the second world war: that’s just a function of the economy having collapsed so badly in 2020. Note instead the Bank of England’s forecast of 1.25% growth in 2023, falling to just 1% in 2024. David Smith, economics editor of the Sunday Times and no remoaner fanatic, puts that down partly to Covid but partly to the “adverse fiscal consequences of leaving the EU”, which left the country “with a budget hole that has had to be filled with higher taxes. We now have a high-tax economy strangled by red tape and hampered by trade restrictions..
This is always the thing I come back to that I don't get. The Tories like free trade and low regulation. Part of their push for Brexit was to get rid of bureaucrats and remove the "strangling" EU red tape like health and safety.
So surely this can't be their end game. An economy literally tied up in the stuff, where an army of our newly appointed bureaucrats waste vast sums of time and money pursuing petty and pointless red tape.
Some absolute nobbers keep trying to spin this as EU red tape. But I have to assume that most Tories aren't as stupid as Elphick and know the truth. "Just drop the checks" or even better "invoke Article 16" are not solutions, not end games. So where are they going?
Mr. JohnL, I was thinking of something like GIMP or Photoshop to have a crack at turning pencil sketches into something with digital painting or suchlike.
There are probably art communities you could ask. As a non-artist, I'd go to usesthis.com and type "artist" into their search box to see what some actual artists use.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
I would say 'I hope he loses' but I'm not altogether sure I do. Albeit I hope there is no further invasion of the Ukraine, the options in the event of his regime imploding don't strike me as exactly rosy. Bad though Putin is would not Mishustin, Salyukov or, God help us, Shoygu be rather worse?
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
Mr. Pioneers, you must remember the captain of the ship of state is a complete imbecile.
I know that - and several of the officer class with him. But its difficult to collectively deny reality. Even more so when you're trying to spin the political virtues of something which in practice has delivered the antithesis of what you supposedly stand for.
Mr. Pioneers, don't underestimate the capacity for a cretin to bugger things up.
Just look at how the Eastern Empire of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II was a shadow of its former self once the last of them passed away.
Mr. Pioneers, don't underestimate the capacity for a cretin to bugger things up.
Just look at how the Eastern Empire of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II was a shadow of its former self once the last of them passed away.
And don't get me started on the Angeli.
That's my go to reference too. Just think about Nicephorus Phocas I said to the team - they all pretended to have no clue what I was talking about.
So, does an open thread mean we're encouraged to bring something new to the table for discussion, as per the old nightowls protocols? Let me go away and have a think...
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Mr. kle4, Basil II had the oddest childhood. Imperial power was twice usurped, both times by competent kinsmen who advanced the empire and did nothing to harm him.
Nicephorus Phocas was nicknamed the White Death of the Saracens, and ended up being kicked to death by his successor (and former ally).
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Is that really a Civil Service document? Seriously; it should read ' ... assumption about whoM the Queen ...'.
Mr. Pioneers, don't underestimate the capacity for a cretin to bugger things up.
Just look at how the Eastern Empire of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II was a shadow of its former self once the last of them passed away.
And don't get me started on the Angeli.
I think the two biggest morons in positions of authority were Honorius and Valentinian III
She seems to have been applauded by the US Foreign Secretary this afternoon
Even so, when they say "five a day" I don't suppose the public health chaps meant snaps. Professional, posed photographs.
She's effectively asking us to imagine "WTF will she be like if she gets her paws on being PM?"
I am not a fan of Truss but all politicians pose for photographs
Oh yes, but look at that article, with some comparative stats. Doesn't mean you need a tame professional snapper with the sole job of following you around all day as if you were, oh, the President of the United States.
At your expense and all of ours (one or two of us excepted).
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
The bus driver (old joke) or (as some have bet) Theresa May: senior; in the Commons; not standing for next leader.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Is that really a Civil Service document? Seriously; it should read ' ... assumption about whoM the Queen ...'.
It is mainly Americans who care about "whom". We seem to have given up (except you, of course).
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
No. HM appoints the PM. When a leader has just won an election the process is obvious. At all other times HM and advisors undertake a process in which cabinet members have a role but they are not decisive in it. HM is in fact the ultimate umpire when the referee and VAR and Hawkeye all end up indeterminate. And we are fortunate that this is so.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Is that really a Civil Service document? Seriously; it should read ' ... assumption about whoM the Queen ...'.
It is mainly Americans who care about "whom". We seem to have given up (except you, of course).
*sniffs despairingly* The UK really is going to the dogs (vide Kabul, of course).
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Yes. If the PM walks, then the Queen, on advise of the Cabinet, will either call their elected replacement or, if there is to be a contest, someone senior who will not be in the contest, to be the next PM.
Hence the bets on Raab, Gove, Spencer, JR-M, Brady etc. as next PM, but not next Tory leader.
She wants the top job so hardly unique behaviour by a politician
She is spending our money on self-promotion at an alarming rate
And other politicians don't
The point is that she has a full time photographer, and, as you say, other pols don't. She's basically spending taxpayer money on campaigning for the Tory Party leadership. Whether that is intentional or not, the timing certainly has that effect - and that level of spending is not normal anyway.
Edit: tbf Mr Johnson does now have a tame snapper too. But he is PM, although it's still an unpleasantly presidential development.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Eminently sensible
Unless the person who gets selected as "less senior non-contender" is Sebastian Fox.
Yes, there are some dangerously amoral lunatics in that cabinet. Dorries. Patel. Mogg. But also plenty of make Ben Swain look intelligent. Like Michael Green. Imagine if he ended up as the least worst option as Johnson flounced away and major infighting broke out.
So, does an open thread mean we're encouraged to bring something new to the table for discussion, as per the old nightowls protocols? Let me go away and have a think...
Here's one. A counterfactual. Corbyn could have been PM. Winning in 2017 means an election due in May 2022 under FTPA, and Corbyn still in power. What with Russia and Ukraine and all that, to say nothing of that referendum in 2016, where would we now be with regards to:
Russia, Ukraine, USA, NATO, nukes, Brexit, Palestine, polling, Tory leadership. Etc.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Eminently sensible
Unless the person who gets selected as "less senior non-contender" is Sebastian Fox.
Yes, there are some dangerously amoral lunatics in that cabinet. Dorries. Patel. Mogg. But also plenty of make Ben Swain look intelligent. Like Michael Green. Imagine if he ended up as the least worst option as Johnson flounced away and major infighting broke out.
We are fortunate to have HM. None of these things will occur.
She wants the top job so hardly unique behaviour by a politician
She is spending our money on self-promotion at an alarming rate
And other politicians don't
The point is that she has a full time photographer, and, as you say, other pols don't. She's basically spending taxpayer money on campaigning for the Tory Party leadership. Whether that is intentional or not, the timing certainly has that effect - and that level of spending is not normal anyway.
Edit: tbf Mr Johnson does now have a tame snapper too. But he is PM, although it's still an unpleasantly presidential development.
Irrespective wherever senior politicians go the media photograph them continously and I just cannot get in a state over this
She wants the top job so hardly unique behaviour by a politician
She is spending our money on self-promotion at an alarming rate
And other politicians don't
The point is that she has a full time photographer, and, as you say, other pols don't. She's basically spending taxpayer money on campaigning for the Tory Party leadership. Whether that is intentional or not, the timing certainly has that effect - and that level of spending is not normal anyway.
Edit: tbf Mr Johnson does now have a tame snapper too. But he is PM, although it's still an unpleasantly presidential development.
Irrespective wherever senior politicians go the media photograph them continously and I just cannot get in a state over this
Edit: most pols don't pay the media to photograph them with public money ...
Imagine how you would feel if Mr Drakeford did the same by way of spending your taxes.
As far as Ms Truss is concerned, it's something that has attracted comment from several sides of the political spectrum already.
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Eminently sensible
Unless the person who gets selected as "less senior non-contender" is Sebastian Fox.
Yes, there are some dangerously amoral lunatics in that cabinet. Dorries. Patel. Mogg. But also plenty of make Ben Swain look intelligent. Like Michael Green. Imagine if he ended up as the least worst option as Johnson flounced away and major infighting broke out.
You know that is not going to happen
Indeed I am relaxed about an interim pm and the sooner the better
So, does an open thread mean we're encouraged to bring something new to the table for discussion, as per the old nightowls protocols? Let me go away and have a think...
Here's one. A counterfactual. Corbyn could have been PM. Winning in 2017 means an election due in May 2022 under FTPA, and Corbyn still in power. What with Russia and Ukraine and all that, to say nothing of that referendum in 2016, where would we now be with regards to:
Russia, Ukraine, USA, NATO, nukes, Brexit, Palestine, polling, Tory leadership. Etc.
Well for one thing they wouldn't have been waving British flags in Kiev/Kyiv/however-we're-meant-to-spell-it last week. Burning them more likely.
She wants the top job so hardly unique behaviour by a politician
She is spending our money on self-promotion at an alarming rate
And other politicians don't
The point is that she has a full time photographer, and, as you say, other pols don't. She's basically spending taxpayer money on campaigning for the Tory Party leadership. Whether that is intentional or not, the timing certainly has that effect - and that level of spending is not normal anyway.
Edit: tbf Mr Johnson does now have a tame snapper too. But he is PM, although it's still an unpleasantly presidential development.
Irrespective wherever senior politicians go the media photograph them continously and I just cannot get in a state over this
Imagine how you would feel if Mr Drakeford did the same by way of spending your taxes.
As far as Ms Truss is concerned, it's something that has attracted comment from several sides of the political spectrum already.
Drakeford mis - spending of my taxes is way over a professional photographer
Mr. F, I can see Honorius, but which Valentinian do you mean? The angry fellow certainly had flaws but was also, from memory, the last chap to properly defend the West (though Majorian did have a good crack at it, treachery put paid to his efforts).
So, does an open thread mean we're encouraged to bring something new to the table for discussion, as per the old nightowls protocols? Let me go away and have a think...
Here's one. A counterfactual. Corbyn could have been PM. Winning in 2017 means an election due in May 2022 under FTPA, and Corbyn still in power. What with Russia and Ukraine and all that, to say nothing of that referendum in 2016, where would we now be with regards to:
Russia, Ukraine, USA, NATO, nukes, Brexit, Palestine, polling, Tory leadership. Etc.
Where would we be? Putin would be launching his attack on Ukraine using Bear's based at RAF Fairford. Your favourite intellectual lawyer and mine Richard "Ding Dong" Burgon would give a moving speech at the base as the brave boys fly off to attack the imperialists...
Truss would lead the tories to an electoral disaster.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
I think you could be right about the Black Wednesday moment. Ironically, that's probably why the Tories are sticking with Boris - perhaps he's one of those few politicians in history who could pull a rabbit out of the hat through sheer audacity and charisma. With any of the other journeymen, they're sunk.
I expect Boris to face a vonc in the next couple of weeks and if he goes, then we will enter a period of intense scrutiny on the candidates to takeover and with the media's obsession with these things expect wall to wall conservative party coverage for upto 8 weeks, then the circus over going to the Queen followed by speculation on the new cabinet and announcements of policies by the new PM
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
Unlike Emperor Browns ludicrous coronation, without a single test, if the Tories have several rounds and one of the last 2 standing is way behind on MP support so drops out, it’s not really a coronation is it? How upset would membership really be if 75% Parliamentary party coalesce around someone - because any sensible minded member would see it insane for that person to lose a membership vote and someone with 25% MP support become leader.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
All the mps would have to agree to nominate one candidate otherwise 2 will go forward
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
Johnson remains PM until a new leader is elected. Losing the leadership of the party doesn't mean he ceases to be PM (cf Thatcher).
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
If Boris loses he will have to resign both positions unless he agrees to continue while his successor is chosen and that is accepted by the 1922
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
This from a source I can't now remember, but some sort of guide for top civil servants/ministers says this about death of PM, which is analogous to PM doing an Achilles:
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Eminently sensible
Unless the person who gets selected as "less senior non-contender" is Sebastian Fox.
Yes, there are some dangerously amoral lunatics in that cabinet. Dorries. Patel. Mogg. But also plenty of make Ben Swain look intelligent. Like Michael Green. Imagine if he ended up as the least worst option as Johnson flounced away and major infighting broke out.
You know that is not going to happen
Indeed I am relaxed about an interim pm and the sooner the better
I anticipate it would be Raaaaaaab as he is Depute PM. My post was hypothesising the "less senior non-contender" compromise which was proposed.
Open thread – politicalbetting.com
Comments
I agree with the header.
Although Rishi is closest, and seems to be a rapid learner.
Sunak ... I'm not sure. He's a mega-rich multimillionaire former banker. Not the best pitch especially in difficult times.
And it may all be too late for the tories. I think we've witnessed the kind of shift which happened after Black Wednesday.
A couple of things:
1) At the forthcoming PB gathering, would anyone be interested in thoughts on Cheltenham - a kind of mini-preview section during the evening? I'd be happy to offer my thoughts to help you with the ones to lay at all costs.
Could we cover other sports (football, rugby u, snooker etc) and forthcoming betting opportunities as well as suggest other political markets for Shadsy - number of elected Conservative Councillors in London, number of Boroughs under majority control of Con, Lab, LD etc.
2) Out and about on yet another sunny if crisp London winter Saturday. Canary Wharf busy but able to get a quiet corner at my favourite coffee emporium. Plenty of people with pushchairs suggesting (perhaps) some of the demographic speculation around the virus might be misplaced. A real sense finally of the virus having passed and life adjusting to the new normalities.
I saw a few people who were obviously working and of course hybrid working shouldn't just mean Monday-Friday. We should be thinking of work in different ways and there may be those for whom working in the office at weekends might be an option. It will be interesting if thinking around employers adapts to this evolution in working habits.
Obvious gaps in Canary Wharf retail but good to see the eateries at Crossrail Place doing well - I shall have to remind Mrs Stodge of a few revisits in the next couple of months. Mask wearing on the tube patchy - on some parts of a train almost total compliance, on other parts of the same train almost complete non-compliance. It's an interesting phenomenon which I've only just recognised - those wanting to wear masks gravitate to/ those parts of the train where the majority are wearing them and vice versa.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/12/liz-truss-instagram-diplomacy-five-photos-a-day-foreign-secretary-flickr
then again these guys elected ids, so who knows
But it'd be a far better option than Truss.
How about Ben Wallace upsetting the betting
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/11/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-opportunities-britain-economy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Pretty much sums my view in totality.
Ignore the talk of the greatest growth since the second world war: that’s just a function of the economy having collapsed so badly in 2020. Note instead the Bank of England’s forecast of 1.25% growth in 2023, falling to just 1% in 2024. David Smith, economics editor of the Sunday Times and no remoaner fanatic, puts that down partly to Covid but partly to the “adverse fiscal consequences of leaving the EU”, which left the country “with a budget hole that has had to be filled with higher taxes. We now have a high-tax economy strangled by red tape and hampered by trade restrictions..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffsimages/6808725777
Boris Johnson's recovery continues.
Everton 3 up!
Cheers to Mr. Age, Mr. Lilburne, and Mr. Eek for their computer responses earlier.
As for detail stuff: it's slightly odd, but the 'proper' purpose of a laptop will be as a backup if my desktop goes wonky (as I work online). However... I do like the idea of being able to use it for art. Being a writer, this means the 'proper' needs are very minimal (web browsing and word processing, essentially). But for art, it'd need to be rather beefier. Asking elsewhere has raised a suggestion of the following specs:
RAM 8GB DDR4 SDRAM, 1TB storage
As before, any suggestions on where to buy/what to buy are welcome. Had some suggestions of a Microsoft Surface.
The other parties will be crowded out and the effect on public opinion will be fascinating
The only way to avoid this is for the conservative party to do the sensible thing and back a single candidate, ensuring a coronation
However, conservative party and sensible just do not go together
I’m not sure that grain and wheat come into it too much, they’re secondary considerations. I guess in Putin’s dreams, he can starve the EU of food as well as gas.
What’s clear though, is that Putin sees Ukraine as within the Russian ‘sphere’, if not Russian territory, and very much dislikes any suggestion that the EU and NATO might come closer to his border. He’s also desparate for domestic wins after the pandemic, which has been brutal for Russia.
1. Inflation, and possibly interest rates, are rising. Back then we were going into a very benign set of economic conditions.
2. The dividing lines in politics are different. They are less about economics and more about culture, though maybe that will change as inflation bites.
3. The public finances are a mess.
4. Scotland.
That’s not to say that the Tories aren’t in trouble, just that we shouldn’t view everything through the prism of the past.
There used to be a really good company laptopshop.co.uk but it seems they are no longer around.
Scan.co.uk in Bolton are really good, but more orientated to desktops rather than laptops.
Get at least 16GB RAM, and Windows 10 rather than Windows 11. Laptops are now pretty much not upgradeable, so buy the most expensive one you can afford.
PM me if you want to go through in much more detail, happy to help. I do IT procurement for a day job.
The general feeling on the Baltic is that Putin is now in a trap, and if the Kremlin choses to go into Ukraine, they will face a price that will rattle Putin´s teeth. Even now, with only limited official sanctions, the outlook for the Russian economy is pretty bleak, with the local markets now trading at over 25% yield and dramatic pressure on the Rouble. More seriously, the risk is that if they do go in, and they face determined resistance, then they will not be able to hold on. Invasion is one thing, occupation quite another. Even a limited objective of expansion of the Donbas pocket and possible recognition of the DNR/LNR seals the political perimeter of Ukraine and increases the costs to Russia while ending the hope of using Donbas as a Trojan horse. Invasion is a very risky option, and the consequences of immediate NATO reinforcement and the entry of Sweden and Finland leaves Russia drastically weaker then before, and with its economy deadlocked by sanctions.
Second option is that the exercises stop and the troops go back to barracks next week. However this is a drastic climb down and reduces Putin´s credibility massively and still incurs costs, albeit far less that launching a war.
Third option is that Scholz (with US blessing) acts as a "good cop" from the Russian point of view and a face saver is announced on Wednesday. Yet this is not a done deal, and the previous Russian demands and intransigence will make this effectively a climb down, albeit that from the Russian point of view has the benefit that it might increase the tension between Germany and the CEE members of NATO.
Russia simply does not have the strength to face down a united and determined NATO response and the wonks in the Biden west wing and the Pentagon seem to have kept the whole alliance on side while the Russians blundered into a losing situation. The US revenge for Trump and all the other needling could force a major strategic turn in Moscow that in the medium disconnects from China and reengages with the West, which removes a threat on the Eastern flank and leaves XI Jinping incresingly isolated. The point being that Washington now sees the end of the Russo-Chinese repprochement as a goal worth having.
So, even though it still feels like we are on the wall at Helms Deep, the determination to defend NATO in being is giving us a lot of reassurance. The recklessness and arrogance of Putin seems to have led Russia into a trap of its own making, and although the crisis point is now more or less upon us, there is a sense that Washington and NATO have made clear and effective decisions and that Putin must now play a very bad hand at great risk to himself and his regime.
Worth considering if you (ie Mr D) want one with a touchscreen and stylus.
Friendly words for UK foreign secretary over her Ukraine diplomacy from her US counterpart after a frosty reception from Russia. @SecBlinken says he appreciates “her strong coordination with the US, allies & partners to deter Russia’s escalation”.
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah
How was the round trip to Mars Andy?
If there is going to be military action, the next 7 days has been given the highest percentage rating. Sundays are always interesting and next Wednesday is, reportedly, the highest rated day that has been circulated in Washington.
That's a good analysis imo and I think your Option 3 is what will happen. Putin gets something but its value is less than it has cost. Which is the key thing - since it means the aggression hasn't paid off.
The bigger problem I think is the mechanics of a stand in leader, say Boris loses vonc Monday week say Tuesday week, who is PM whilst his replacement selected. Boris not resigning favours quick contest favours Rishi.
So surely this can't be their end game. An economy literally tied up in the stuff, where an army of our newly appointed bureaucrats waste vast sums of time and money pursuing petty and pointless red tape.
Some absolute nobbers keep trying to spin this as EU red tape. But I have to assume that most Tories aren't as stupid as Elphick and know the truth. "Just drop the checks" or even better "invoke Article 16" are not solutions, not end games. So where are they going?
Raab would be stand in leader unless he stands in which case the mps need to nominate a temp leader
If he decided not to perform any duties I agree about Raab being his likely substitute. However, in the event of a full flounce traditionally the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor. Given they all know Raab I think that would count against him. They would be more likely to nominate Wallace, as the most senior minister not identified with a particular faction, or ask May or Hague to come back temporarily.
And on Wallace I expect him to stand though an obvious temp PM would be Theresa but the conservatives do not do obvious
Just look at how the Eastern Empire of Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II was a shadow of its former self once the last of them passed away.
And don't get me started on the Angeli.
💊 Priti Patel at Boots
🔧 Steve Barclay at Ikea
🦜 Rishi Sunak stroking a parrot
...and lots and lots Liz Truss.
There's one Truss photo for every 5 hours she's had the job.
I examined the government's official Flickr account so you don't have to:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/12/liz-truss-instagram-diplomacy-five-photos-a-day-foreign-secretary-flickr
She's effectively asking us to imagine "WTF will she be like if she gets her paws on being PM?"
There is no single protocol setting out all of the possible implications. However, the general constitutional position is as set out below. There can be no automatic assumption about who The Queen would ask to act as caretaker Prime Minister in the event of the death of the Prime Minister. The decision is for her under the Royal Prerogative. However, there are some key guiding principles. The Queen would probably be looking for a very senior member of the Government (not necessarily a Commons Minister since this would be a short-term appointment). If there was a recognised deputy to the Prime Minister, used to acting on his behalf in his absences, this could be an important factor. Also important would be the question of who was likely to be in contention to take over long-term as Prime Minister. If the most senior member of the Government was him or herself a contender for the role of Prime Minister, it might be that The Queen would invite a slightly less senior non-contender. In these circumstances, her private secretary would probably take soundings, via the Cabinet Secretary, of members of the Cabinet, to ensure that The Queen invited someone who would be acceptable to the Cabinet to act as their chair during the caretaker period. Once the Party had elected a new leader, that person would, of course, be invited to take over as Prime Minister.
Nicephorus Phocas was nicknamed the White Death of the Saracens, and ended up being kicked to death by his successor (and former ally).
The conversation lasted 62 minutes, per WH press pool.
https://twitter.com/DevonHeinen/status/1492560142306476033?s=20&t=jyg-MoLTKPF3xSDEtqe69A
At your expense and all of ours (one or two of us excepted).
Hence the bets on Raab, Gove, Spencer, JR-M, Brady etc. as next PM, but not next Tory leader.
Edit: tbf Mr Johnson does now have a tame snapper too. But he is PM, although it's still an unpleasantly presidential development.
Yes, there are some dangerously amoral lunatics in that cabinet. Dorries. Patel. Mogg. But also plenty of make Ben Swain look intelligent. Like Michael Green. Imagine if he ended up as the least worst option as Johnson flounced away and major infighting broke out.
Russia, Ukraine, USA, NATO, nukes, Brexit, Palestine, polling, Tory leadership. Etc.
Imagine how you would feel if Mr Drakeford did the same by way of spending your taxes.
As far as Ms Truss is concerned, it's something that has attracted comment from several sides of the political spectrum already.
Apart from the story above there is another article in another paper about it
Indeed I am relaxed about an interim pm and the sooner the better