Opinium’s “new methodology” has the LAB lead down to just 3% – politicalbetting.com
I have been in the hospital all day and only just returned home and my plan is to do something more on tonight’s Opinium poll when I have had time to study it more closely.
I think one has to ask the question “what are pollsters trying to do?” I know midterm polling isn’t especially helpful at predicting the future, but I’m not sure they should be turned into projections for an election that is likely to be two years away.
I think one has to ask the question “what are pollsters trying to do?” I know midterm polling isn’t especially helpful at predicting the future, but I’m not sure they should be turned into projections for an election that is likely to be two years away.
Well, the headline voting intention question has an element of make-believe in it - if there was a general election today.
It's a bit of a problem for people to answer don't know to that question if they're very likely to make a choice when the day comes.
Maybe it's the wrong question to ask in midterm altogether, and approval/best PM questions are easier for people to give a meaningful answer to.
The Tories might as well stick with Johnson now. Johnson should withdraw the whip from his enemies like he did in 2019.
Years out from an election? In 2019 expulsion was a gamble worth taking as the gov was paralysed and the goal was an election as soon as possible, which would reduce the impact of now having a group with the whip removed.
I think one has to ask the question “what are pollsters trying to do?” I know midterm polling isn’t especially helpful at predicting the future, but I’m not sure they should be turned into projections for an election that is likely to be two years away.
The options for a don't know voter are either they really don’t know or they are too embarrassed to say.
Given Bozo’s current issues there is a valid argument that a 2019 Tory don't know poster is just a Tory voter who is very to slightly annoyed but will return to the fold at the next election.
The Tories might as well stick with Johnson now. Johnson should withdraw the whip from his enemies like he did in 2019.
Yes. There are number of Tory MPs who have probably now torpedoed their own careers, though they obviously didn't realize it when the VONC stuff was exploding a few weeks back. To see Boris still in place must be something or a horror story for them.
The Tories might as well stick with Johnson now. Johnson should withdraw the whip from his enemies like he did in 2019.
Yes. There are number of Tory MPs who have probably now torpedoed their own careers, though they obviously didn't realize it when the VONC stuff was exploding a few weeks back. To see Boris still in place must be something or a horror story for them.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
Both the 10% and 3% leads make sense to me. The former is an estimate of the likely outcome in the wholly fictional event of an election tomorrow. The latter is an estimate of where we are likely to be when the election does take place. Naturally the second estimate makes a lot of assumptions about what will happen in the intervening period but some of those assumptions are perfectly reasonable - for example, Boris is unlikely to be leading the Conservative Party and a lot of voters who are currently wavering will return to type in due course.
Both methodologies are reasonable and as long as you know that they are measuring different things I don't have a problem with either.
We can now expect Opinium to be regularly out of line with the other main pollsters, but we can also expect the gap between Opinium and the rest to gradually reduce as we near election day and the imponderables lessen over time.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
@haynesdeborah As US warns of impending Russian invasion potential, a Ukrainian friend just told me about 70% of the chat today on his Facebook among friends is about… who will represent Ukraine in @Eurovision 2022
I expect he'll feel jolly small when he reads that. I mean, whose political judgment do we go with, Aaron Bell or 'ping'?
Like most PB posters, I usually ignore your posts. You bring nothing useful to the debate.
I’ve interacted with Aaron for many years. Indeed, I had to pay up after losing a bet to him back in 2010.
I don’t underestimate his political judgment. It surprised me when he made, what seemed to me, like an obvious miscalculation. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
Both the 10% and 3% leads make sense to me. The former is an estimate of the likely outcome in the wholly fictional event of an election tomorrow. The latter is an estimate of where we are likely to be when the election does take place. Naturally the second estimate makes a lot of assumptions about what will happen in the intervening period but some of those assumptions are perfectly reasonable - for example, Boris is unlikely to be leading the Conservative Party and a lot of voters who are currently wavering will return to type in due course.
Not at all sure about "returning to type". There are a lot of people who could vote Lib Dem or who could vote Conservative. In 2019 a lot of these people went Conservative for fear of getting a Corbyn-led government. With Corbyn safely out of the way, they may well "return to type" - but the type they return to could well be Lib Dem.
The Tories might as well stick with Johnson now. Johnson should withdraw the whip from his enemies like he did in 2019.
There is no logic to this at all. At any point the Tories can remove Boris and put in Sunak and they will add 5-10 points to their score. Just because they have been stupid enough to not do it yet doesn't change the fact it is stupid to continue to not do it.
Both the 10% and 3% leads make sense to me. The former is an estimate of the likely outcome in the wholly fictional event of an election tomorrow. The latter is an estimate of where we are likely to be when the election does take place. Naturally the second estimate makes a lot of assumptions about what will happen in the intervening period but some of those assumptions are perfectly reasonable - for example, Boris is unlikely to be leading the Conservative Party and a lot of voters who are currently wavering will return to type in due course.
Not at all sure about "returning to type". There are a lot of people who could vote Lib Dem or who could vote Conservative. In 2019 a lot of these people went Conservative for fear of getting a Corbyn-led government. With Corbyn safely out of the way, they may well "return to type" - but the type they return to could well be Lib Dem.
True, but then that's one of the imponderables that is gradually eliminated as we close in on Election Day.
"Authorities in New Zealand have been playing Barry Manilow's greatest hits in an attempt to dislodge protesters camped outside the parliament building. Songs by the US singer are being played on a 15-minute loop, along with the Spanish dance tune, Macarena. The demonstrators, who are angry at Covid-19 vaccine mandates, responded by playing songs such as Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It."
It being cheered was because, for a great many at least, it was the right thing to do regardless of whether it would or should lead to Boris going.
It was neither in his own interests, nor his constituents interests. I think he miscalculated, and said so at the time.
Is miscalculation the right word? He thought Boris crossed a line and felt obliged to say so, I doubt he calculated it would be in his short term political interest (and the long term interest is not certain to be improved by doing so). MPs are not brave, they don't call out their own Leaders on the record very often even when they are very unhappy, so if they do it it seems probable to me they think it right to do so, not because they've calculated it as the best for them. If that is their belief they'd probably stick to staying schtum.
The list of MPs who have gone on record like Bell includes newbies and oldies, those with massive majorities and those in marginals. If personal calculation was the primary factor for them there would be a lot more unformity in who was calling Boris out.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
Yes, the combination of being charming and having some more sociopathic traits, isn't at all uncommon.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
It's the cuddlyfication of BJ done by the likes of Martin and Finkelstein that's allowed Johnson to enter the chicken coop.
The chicken coop could describe the Tory party of course, or even chicken coup.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
"It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling"
Not sure they are selling a chummy image to be honest. Both of them think he is unfit to be PM and it has been a massive mistake iirc.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
You can check out this 'Goodfellows' vodcast with Niall Ferguson and Andrew Sullivan, both of whom knew Boris at University and had contrasting reactions to him. Sullivan was even at school with Keir Starmer.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
You can check out this 'Goodfellows' vodcast with Niall Ferguson and Andrew Sullivan, both of whom knew Boris at University and had contrasting reactions to him. Sullivan was even at school with Keir Starmer.
I expect he'll feel jolly small when he reads that. I mean, whose political judgment do we go with, Aaron Bell or 'ping'?
Like most PB posters, I usually ignore your posts. You bring nothing useful to the debate.
I’ve interacted with Aaron for many years. Indeed, I had to pay up after losing a bet to him back in 2010.
I don’t underestimate his political judgment. It surprised me when he made, what seemed to me, like an obvious miscalculation. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Watching the film of him standing up in Commons it looked to be as if his was just very very angry about the disconnect between his gran's funeral and a load of tossers in No 10 on the piss in lockdowns.
On topic, I don't think it tells us much that we didn't know from looking at other polls - there is a large group of Con 2019 voters who now say "Don't know" or "Won't vote". It is risky to assume they'll all vote, or that none of them will.
The head-shaking over Tissue Rprice/Aaron is also premature. First, it's not only about career - if he feels the PM should be replaced, there's a case for saying so without cynical calculation. Second, it's really anyone's guess how the Met investigation and its political consequences will work out.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
The ironic thing about the parties is that according to his profilers, Boris is not very gregarious and hates parties. That might explain why he claims to have left after half an hour, and why in the garden photo, he is at a table with Carrie and Cummings, well away from the larger groups.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
It's the cuddlyfication of BJ done by the likes of Martin and Finkelstein that's allowed Johnson to enter the chicken coop.
The chicken coop could describe the Tory party of course, or even chicken coup.
I remember watching HIGNFY with my dad 20 years ago when Johnson was on it. I was surprised how angry my dad was with the BBC for making Johnson an "amusing" character.
"He is a very dangerous man" said my dad. I didn't know what he meant at the time, it wasn't the kind of thing my dad (a serious student of the history of the Nazis who had an LP of Hitler's speeches) said lightly.
"Authorities in New Zealand have been playing Barry Manilow's greatest hits in an attempt to dislodge protesters camped outside the parliament building. Songs by the US singer are being played on a 15-minute loop, along with the Spanish dance tune, Macarena. The demonstrators, who are angry at Covid-19 vaccine mandates, responded by playing songs such as Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It."
Best of luck to OGH. Not sure this doesn't just obfuscate stuff. We all know Labour tend to underperform their polling. Though not always in 2010 and 2017. But generally. Consistency is good.
The Tories might as well stick with Johnson now. Johnson should withdraw the whip from his enemies like he did in 2019.
Hmmmmm.
Problem with that is who are his enemies? If he withdraws the whip from those obviously declared (TissuePrice et al.) then he'd lose about 20MPs. Not enough to lose his majority, but it would go from 76 to 36 overnight. Not great. They'd then sit on the opposition benches glaring for the next two years.... good or not? Who knows. Plus, it doesn't get rid of all of Johnson's 'bastards'.
Get rid of all declared and suspected? Can't. He'd lose his majority and quite likely lose the next VONC tabled by Labour. GE.
Austria is sticking with its opposition to including the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in a package of sanctions against Moscow that the European Union is preparing in the event Russia invades Ukraine, Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg said on Friday.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
You can check out this 'Goodfellows' vodcast with Niall Ferguson and Andrew Sullivan, both of whom knew Boris at University and had contrasting reactions to him. Sullivan was even at school with Keir Starmer.
What you want from a poll is to see how the popularity of the parties have changed since that pollster's previous poll. This change in method makes that impossible and all previous polls from this pollster worthless.
Ipsos Mori changed their methodology some years ago by introducing a 1-10 'likely to vote' addition and then being unsure of which was most accurate posted both sets of results every time they polled and asked the poll watchers to take their pick! It was bonkers!
What you want from a poll is to see how the popularity of the parties have changed since that pollster's previous poll. This change in method makes that impossible and all previous polls from this pollster worthless.
Ipsos Mori changed their methodology some years ago by introducing a 1-10 'likely to vote' addition and then being unsure of which was most accurate posted both sets of results every time they polled and asked the poll watchers to take their pick! It was bonkers!
Under our old methodology the result would have been Con 32% Lab 42% Lib Dem 9% Green 5% So there is no evidence that Labour’s position has weakened over the past two weeks.
It is perhaps right to allocate some of the dont knows as Conservative. I voted Conservative in the last 7 general elections, and expect to do so at the next. But I really dont think I would if this dishonest lazy adulterous buffoon is still leader. If I was polled today I think I might say Don't Know, but an objective observer might assume I was quite likely to vote the same way as I had the last 7 times.
What you want from a poll is to see how the popularity of the parties have changed since that pollster's previous poll. This change in method makes that impossible and all previous polls from this pollster worthless.
Ipsos Mori changed their methodology some years ago by introducing a 1-10 'likely to vote' addition and then being unsure of which was most accurate posted both sets of results every time they polled and asked the poll watchers to take their pick! It was bonkers!
Under our old methodology the result would have been Con 32% Lab 42% Lib Dem 9% Green 5% So there is no evidence that Labour’s position has weakened over the past two weeks.
It answers the question for this poll but if they change to the new method all those nice graphs the statisticians prepare are going to have to be reworked or shredded
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
And plenty of others who've know Boris well, also on the political right, can't stand the bloke.
My brother-in-law was at Balliol with him and a few years back wrote what to this day remains the best assessment of him I have ever read. It was not the hatchet job you might have expected. It was instead very thoughtful and perceptive, particularly in respect of his privileged background and the sense of entitlement it seemed to nourish in him and his friends.
You can check out this 'Goodfellows' vodcast with Niall Ferguson and Andrew Sullivan, both of whom knew Boris at University and had contrasting reactions to him. Sullivan was even at school with Keir Starmer.
It is perhaps right to allocate some of the dont knows as Conservative. I voted Conservative in the last 7 general elections, and expect to do so at the next. But I really dont think I would if this dishonest lazy adulterous buffoon is still leader. If I was polled today I think I might say Don't Know, but an objective observer might assume I was quite likely to vote the same way as I had the last 7 times.
You ought to vote against him, seeing as you obviously have a low opinion of him. Although I'm wondering why you voted for him last time, when none of your description is new information.
Maybe you are right. But that's not the point. We are talking about the methodology specifically in relation to dont knows. Excluding them doesnt seem right.
@haynesdeborah As US warns of impending Russian invasion potential, a Ukrainian friend just told me about 70% of the chat today on his Facebook among friends is about… who will represent Ukraine in @Eurovision 2022
It is perhaps right to allocate some of the dont knows as Conservative. I voted Conservative in the last 7 general elections, and expect to do so at the next. But I really dont think I would if this dishonest lazy adulterous buffoon is still leader. If I was polled today I think I might say Don't Know, but an objective observer might assume I was quite likely to vote the same way as I had the last 7 times.
You ought to vote against him, seeing as you obviously have a low opinion of him. Although I'm wondering why you voted for him last time, when none of your description is new information.
Maybe you are right. But that's not the point. We are talking about the methodology specifically in relation to dont knows. Excluding them doesnt seem right.
It is perhaps right to allocate some of the dont knows as Conservative. I voted Conservative in the last 7 general elections, and expect to do so at the next. But I really dont think I would if this dishonest lazy adulterous buffoon is still leader. If I was polled today I think I might say Don't Know, but an objective observer might assume I was quite likely to vote the same way as I had the last 7 times.
You ought to vote against him, seeing as you obviously have a low opinion of him. Although I'm wondering why you voted for him last time, when none of your description is new information.
Maybe you are right. But that's not the point. We are talking about the methodology specifically in relation to dont knows. Excluding them doesnt seem right.
I liked your original post gettingbetter. If we are going to help each other and betting on this blog, that sort of plain speaking honesty is what it takes.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
The Opinium situation does seem a bit odd. It's almost as if no-one can believe that Labour are doing so well and are fiddling the figures accordingly.
On Ukraine, I still don't think Russia will invade. Some skirmishing perhaps but no full-scale invasion. I may be wrong.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
No.
Adam Kay's book, which I quite liked, nevertheless has some rather schoolboy 'humour' misogynism about it.
But on the broader point, it is absolutely NOT the case that all topics are fair game. Any decent human being doesn't make jokes about the deaths of people: whether Romas or children, for example.
I'm weary of the attack on 'wokeness' being used as a front for plain nasty, vile, human behaviour.
The Nasty Party is back.
(But I expect when Sandpit gets up in Dubai he will still like your post, so that's alright then)
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
You don't think that if the British Foreign Secretary flies to another country and tells them how to behave, that she should know her brief?
'The book was wildly popular, selling 2.5 million copies to date. I was one of the few readers who didn’t love it. Although it was snappily written and an excellent insight into how hospitals work, there was an unpleasant streak of misogyny running through it and a sniggering schoolboy humour that no woman who has spent time on an obs and gynae ward – or “brats and t--ts”, as it is charmingly referred to – wants to read. Say, a description of a patient’s vulval condition as looking “like cauliflower florets, mate”, or the delineation between the work of midwives and doctors sometimes being “a greyer area than your nan’s vagina”. You get the picture.'
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
No.
Adam Kay's book, which I quite liked, nevertheless has some rather schoolboy 'humour' misogynism about it.
But on the broader point, it is absolutely NOT the case that all topics are fair game. Any decent human being doesn't make jokes about the deaths of people: whether Romas or children, for example.
I'm weary of the attack on 'wokeness' being used as a front for plain nasty, vile, human behaviour.
The Nasty Party is back.
(But I expect when Sandpit gets up in Dubai he will still like your post, so that's alright then)
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
No.
Adam Kay's book, which I quite liked, nevertheless has some rather schoolboy 'humour' misogynism about it.
But on the broader point, it is absolutely NOT the case that all topics are fair game. Any decent human being doesn't make jokes about the deaths of people: whether Romas or children, for example.
I'm weary of the attack on 'wokeness' being used as a front for plain nasty, vile, human behaviour.
The Nasty Party is back.
(But I expect when Sandpit gets up in Dubai he will still like your post, so that's alright then)
"@nickschifrin Asked whether the embassy was burning documents already and moving classified equipment, the official said the embassy was “reducing those holdings” and “reducing that volume of equipment,” without being specific. 1:56 PM · Feb 12, 2022"
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Indeed. She was probably too busy planning her photo ops to read up about foreign policy.
"@nickschifrin Asked whether the embassy was burning documents already and moving classified equipment, the official said the embassy was “reducing those holdings” and “reducing that volume of equipment,” without being specific. 1:56 PM · Feb 12, 2022"
Phoenix Air is known for moving around US gov related stuff in emergency situations, if I were to put money on it I would be willing to be they are hauling away stuff from the embassy.
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
No.
Adam Kay's book, which I quite liked, nevertheless has some rather schoolboy 'humour' misogynism about it.
But on the broader point, it is absolutely NOT the case that all topics are fair game. Any decent human being doesn't make jokes about the deaths of people: whether Romas or children, for example.
I'm weary of the attack on 'wokeness' being used as a front for plain nasty, vile, human behaviour.
The Nasty Party is back.
(But I expect when Sandpit gets up in Dubai he will still like your post, so that's alright then)
'The book was wildly popular, selling 2.5 million copies to date. I was one of the few readers who didn’t love it. Although it was snappily written and an excellent insight into how hospitals work, there was an unpleasant streak of misogyny running through it and a sniggering schoolboy humour that no woman who has spent time on an obs and gynae ward – or “brats and t--ts”, as it is charmingly referred to – wants to read. Say, a description of a patient’s vulval condition as looking “like cauliflower florets, mate”, or the delineation between the work of midwives and doctors sometimes being “a greyer area than your nan’s vagina”. You get the picture.'
I haven't read the book, but the TV show was awful. With those attitudes and behaviours, I am glad that Kay has quit medicine.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
If Live Laugh Liz didn't know that a) Rostov and Voronezh are in Russia and b) Lavrov is a sneaky old twat so she should parse all of his questions carefully before opening her stupid fucking mouth then she's not fit to be Foreign Sec. and should stick to her other portfolio as Secretary of State for Instagram.
'The book was wildly popular, selling 2.5 million copies to date. I was one of the few readers who didn’t love it. Although it was snappily written and an excellent insight into how hospitals work, there was an unpleasant streak of misogyny running through it and a sniggering schoolboy humour that no woman who has spent time on an obs and gynae ward – or “brats and t--ts”, as it is charmingly referred to – wants to read. Say, a description of a patient’s vulval condition as looking “like cauliflower florets, mate”, or the delineation between the work of midwives and doctors sometimes being “a greyer area than your nan’s vagina”. You get the picture.'
Pretty mild humour, especially if it did look like florets. Perhaps a certain callous humour is a coping mechanism when dealing with miscarriages and stillbirths, even though normally you would expect obstetrics to be the happiest speciality. Better a bad-taste joke than a bottle of gin.
What is interesting in regards to the charge of misogyny is the high ratio of male to female obstetricians and gynaecologists here compared with the United States (source: nothing more scientific than a quick glance at a couple of hospital websites). ETA: see below; even if wrong about UK vs USA, male dominance of the speciality was historically true, partly because nearly all doctors of any sort were male.
Having binge-watched the series last night, the overwhelming impression was that this was Cardiac Arrest updated, even down to the [redacted: spoiler]. That and wondering why the protagonist's rich parents did not buy him a better car.
Of course, much of this increased feminisation might simply reflect the far greater numbers of female medical students (and therefore doctors entering the profession) in recent times. The point is that this might be expected to reduce and eventually remove any residual misogyny.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
Well, in that case I actually feel slightly more kindly to Lavrov for doing us all such a massive favour.
Only slightly, mind. He’s still the useful idiot of a mass murdering twat who would look much better having a nasty and amusing accident with a ten foot pole that goes up his arse.
I recall going up to Maternity on one occasion and being overheard by the Nurse Manager who wanted to know 'what that man was doing in my unit"!
Having said that I used to have to visit, in a professional capacity, Family Planning Clinics and have said here before that I found the exclusively female staff some of the most pleasant people with whom I ever worked. Somewhat 'earthy' humour on occasion, but none the worse for that.
'The book was wildly popular, selling 2.5 million copies to date. I was one of the few readers who didn’t love it. Although it was snappily written and an excellent insight into how hospitals work, there was an unpleasant streak of misogyny running through it and a sniggering schoolboy humour that no woman who has spent time on an obs and gynae ward – or “brats and t--ts”, as it is charmingly referred to – wants to read. Say, a description of a patient’s vulval condition as looking “like cauliflower florets, mate”, or the delineation between the work of midwives and doctors sometimes being “a greyer area than your nan’s vagina”. You get the picture.'
Pretty mild humour, especially if it did look like florets. Perhaps a certain callous humour is a coping mechanism when dealing with miscarriages and stillbirths, even though normally you would expect obstetrics to be the happiest speciality. Better a bad-taste joke than a bottle of gin.
What is interesting in regards to the charge of misogyny is the high ratio of male to female obstetricians and gynaecologists here compared with the United States (source: nothing more scientific than a quick glance at a couple of hospital websites). ETA: see below; even if wrong about UK vs USA, male dominance of the speciality was historically true, partly because nearly all doctors of any sort were male.
Having binge-watched the series last night, the overwhelming impression was that this was Cardiac Arrest updated, even down to the [redacted: spoiler]. That and wondering why the protagonist's rich parents did not buy him a better car.
Of course, much of this increased feminisation might simply reflect the far greater numbers of female medical students (and therefore doctors entering the profession) in recent times. The point is that this might be expected to reduce and eventually remove any residual misogyny.
Of course, the other theme is the appalling treatment by everyone of more junior staff, and the disorganised sink-or-swim training system for junior hospital doctors.
Mr. JohnL, that does remind me a little of the surprising finding (I heard decades ago, so no source alas) that female jurors are more likely to find an accused rapist innocent, whereas male jurors are more likely to find them guilty.
On at least that occasion, individuals seem content to, if they have a bias, be against their own sex rather than the other.
Truss should have used diplomatic language. It’s her job. It’s not as if she didn’t know it was a tricky situation. Instead she made an assumption, bluffed, failed and looked silly.
What’s weird is if this was Radio 4 she would have been fine giving nuanced answers.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
Well, in that case I actually feel slightly more kindly to Lavrov for doing us all such a massive favour.
Only slightly, mind. He’s still the useful idiot of a mass murdering twat who would look much better having a nasty and amusing accident with a ten foot pole that goes up his arse.
It’s funny the number of people who rush to help the Russians by undermining a piece in the West’s chessboard.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
Sometimes people just need to ignore the trolls.
The smart move would have been to say that she is delighted with their offer to hand the Don Basin over to Ukraine and would welcome further talks to see if a settlement could be reached on that basis.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
Well, in that case I actually feel slightly more kindly to Lavrov for doing us all such a massive favour.
Only slightly, mind. He’s still the useful idiot of a mass murdering twat who would look much better having a nasty and amusing accident with a ten foot pole that goes up his arse.
It’s funny the number of people who rush to help the Russians by undermining a piece in the West’s chessboard.
Austria is sticking with its opposition to including the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in a package of sanctions against Moscow that the European Union is preparing in the event Russia invades Ukraine, Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg said on Friday.
Ukraine is not worth the lights going out. As Putin has calculated.
Truss should have used diplomatic language. It’s her job. It’s not as if she didn’t know it was a tricky situation. Instead she made an assumption, bluffed, failed and looked silly.
What’s weird is if this was Radio 4 she would have been fine giving nuanced answers.
The positive take away is that she now knows that - to quote @Dura_Ace - Lavrov is a “sneaky old twat”.
That’s a good lesson to learn for a very low cost.
Truss should have used diplomatic language. It’s her job. It’s not as if she didn’t know it was a tricky situation. Instead she made an assumption, bluffed, failed and looked silly.
What’s weird is if this was Radio 4 she would have been fine giving nuanced answers.
The positive take away is that she now knows that - to quote @Dura_Ace - Lavrov is a “sneaky old twat”.
That’s a good lesson to learn for a very low cost.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
Sometimes people just need to ignore the trolls.
The smart move would have been to say that she is delighted with their offer to hand the Don Basin over to Ukraine and would welcome further talks to see if a settlement could be reached on that basis.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
Sometimes people just need to ignore the trolls.
If she had been asked about Downing St parties she would have given a more diplomatic answer.
Diplomacy is her job. The moment required the upmost care. This is they very essence of her responsibility. Instead of using language with the precision of a surgeon’s knife she bluffed it. Not good.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Lavrov asked a silly trick question and Truss made a mistake. Zero consequence except among the useful idiots in the UK who use it to undermine Truss. Which is why Lavrov did it.
A strong post, StillWaters, a damn fine try at spinning it. Unfortunately you would ask us to believe absolutely everybody would have blundered into that trap - but that isn’t true, is it?
No, she made a mistake. But whatever - people misspeak all the time.
She did not misspeak. The Foreign Secretary might reasonably be expected to have read her brief and maybe glanced at a map on the flight over for crisis talks.
Of course. And then in a discussion the names of 2 oblasts are thrown out. Perhaps she misheard, perhaps she thought they were a different name.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas 2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly 3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
Sometimes people just need to ignore the trolls.
The smart move would have been to say that she is delighted with their offer to hand the Don Basin over to Ukraine and would welcome further talks to see if a settlement could be reached on that basis.
Unfortunately she isn’t very smart.
No one gives a shit about the Don basin.
Biden is playing for Crimea.
I think that had she taken it that way Lavrov would suddenly have been very exercised about the fate of the Don Basin.
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
It's easy enough to buy the chummy image of Johnson that Martin and Fink are selling until you remember his telephone conversation with Darius Guppy, the serial lying and adulteries.
It's the cuddlyfication of BJ done by the likes of Martin and Finkelstein that's allowed Johnson to enter the chicken coop.
The chicken coop could describe the Tory party of course, or even chicken coup.
I remember watching HIGNFY with my dad 20 years ago when Johnson was on it. I was surprised how angry my dad was with the BBC for making Johnson an "amusing" character.
"He is a very dangerous man" said my dad. I didn't know what he meant at the time, it wasn't the kind of thing my dad (a serious student of the history of the Nazis who had an LP of Hitler's speeches) said lightly.
So we should be thankful that history’s dictators all lacked a sense of humour
Comments
It's a bit of a problem for people to answer don't know to that question if they're very likely to make a choice when the day comes.
Maybe it's the wrong question to ask in midterm altogether, and approval/best PM questions are easier for people to give a meaningful answer to.
Given Bozo’s current issues there is a valid argument that a 2019 Tory don't know poster is just a Tory voter who is very to slightly annoyed but will return to the fold at the next election.
Anyway, as said earlier: Two months and six days since the last Tory poll lead*.
(* Redfield & Wilton, 6th December)
I said he’d live to regret it. My view is unchanged.
Btw, all the best, @MikeSmithson
@Dannythefink I’ve known [Boris] for almost forty years. I like him. But this is a properly big and important story which we all have to cover.
Iain Martin
@iainmartin
Indeed. Run into him and he's always amusing, interesting, energising. The sort of person who should be writing books and making historical TV documentaries, adding to the gaiety of the nation. Which is what he was doing. PM? Different thing now and the parties prove it.
Both methodologies are reasonable and as long as you know that they are measuring different things I don't have a problem with either.
We can now expect Opinium to be regularly out of line with the other main pollsters, but we can also expect the gap between Opinium and the rest to gradually reduce as we near election day and the imponderables lessen over time.
@haynesdeborah As US warns of impending Russian invasion potential, a Ukrainian friend just told me about 70% of the chat today on his Facebook among friends is about… who will represent Ukraine in @Eurovision 2022
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1492598451980447752
I’ve interacted with Aaron for many years. Indeed, I had to pay up after losing a bet to him back in 2010.
I don’t underestimate his political judgment. It surprised me when he made, what seemed to me, like an obvious miscalculation. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
"Authorities in New Zealand have been playing Barry Manilow's greatest hits in an attempt to dislodge protesters camped outside the parliament building. Songs by the US singer are being played on a 15-minute loop, along with the Spanish dance tune, Macarena. The demonstrators, who are angry at Covid-19 vaccine mandates, responded by playing songs such as Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-60362529
The list of MPs who have gone on record like Bell includes newbies and oldies, those with massive majorities and those in marginals. If personal calculation was the primary factor for them there would be a lot more unformity in who was calling Boris out.
Any more egregious missteps from @Tissue_Price, be sure to call them out.
The chicken coop could describe the Tory party of course, or even chicken coup.
Not sure they are selling a chummy image to be honest. Both of them think he is unfit to be PM and it has been a massive mistake iirc.
' If that is their belief they'd probably stick to staying schtum.'
They would also most likely have stuck to the rather better paid employment they left to go into politics.
I don't share Aaron Bell's politics but I'm pretty sure he went into the biz for the best of reasons, as so many do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_H3X_jQ0o&t=1894s
Seemed genuine to me.
I'm with Aaron.
On topic, I don't think it tells us much that we didn't know from looking at other polls - there is a large group of Con 2019 voters who now say "Don't know" or "Won't vote". It is risky to assume they'll all vote, or that none of them will.
The head-shaking over Tissue Rprice/Aaron is also premature. First, it's not only about career - if he feels the PM should be replaced, there's a case for saying so without cynical calculation. Second, it's really anyone's guess how the Met investigation and its political consequences will work out.
"He is a very dangerous man" said my dad. I didn't know what he meant at the time, it wasn't the kind of thing my dad (a serious student of the history of the Nazis who had an LP of Hitler's speeches) said lightly.
“ "Authorities in New Zealand have been playing Barry Manilow's greatest hits in an attempt to dislodge protesters “
Can’t read the rest, laughing too hard.
Not sure this doesn't just obfuscate stuff. We all know Labour tend to underperform their polling. Though not always in 2010 and 2017. But generally. Consistency is good.
Problem with that is who are his enemies?
If he withdraws the whip from those obviously declared (TissuePrice et al.) then he'd lose about 20MPs. Not enough to lose his majority, but it would go from 76 to 36 overnight. Not great.
They'd then sit on the opposition benches glaring for the next two years.... good or not? Who knows.
Plus, it doesn't get rid of all of Johnson's 'bastards'.
Get rid of all declared and suspected?
Can't. He'd lose his majority and quite likely lose the next VONC tabled by Labour. GE.
Austria is sticking with its opposition to including the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in a package of sanctions against Moscow that the European Union is preparing in the event Russia invades Ukraine, Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg said on Friday.
Ipsos Mori changed their methodology some years ago by introducing a 1-10 'likely to vote' addition and then being unsure of which was most accurate posted both sets of results every time they polled and asked the poll watchers to take their pick! It was bonkers!
Con 32%
Lab 42%
Lib Dem 9%
Green 5%
So there is no evidence that Labour’s position has weakened over the past two weeks.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1492590622028484608
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/12/liz-truss-an-embarrassment-to-britain/
"According to Russian media reports, not denied by the UK side, Truss’s chilly encounter with her vastly more experienced Russian opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, included an exchange that went roughly like this.
Truss: ‘Russia must move its troops away from the Ukrainian border, or else…’ Lavrov: ‘Why should we? It’s up to Russia where it deploys its troops inside Russia’ (which, of course, it is). He then asked, for good measure: ‘Do you recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?’ At which point Truss mounted her high horse and responded with all the authority of the UK’s chief diplomat: ‘The UK will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.’
This is where the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, Deborah Bronnert, is said to have leant across to Truss and discreetly informed her that these regions were actually in Russia. Her assumption had apparently been that they were the two so-called breakaway regions on the Ukrainian side of the border."
Ukraine not looking great. Israel, Saudi and Italy now joining AUKUS, etc, in advising all citizens to leave
The Sunday Times says an invasion is expected “Wednesday” after a false flag, probably in Donbas, on Monday or Tuesday
Alarmingly specific
The Opinium situation does seem a bit odd. It's almost as if no-one can believe that Labour are doing so well and are fiddling the figures accordingly.
On Ukraine, I still don't think Russia will invade. Some skirmishing perhaps but no full-scale invasion. I may be wrong.
Best-selling author Adam Kay has been desperately trying to remove from the internet any trace of the vile songs Your Baby and Northern Birds, which he recorded as part of a comedy duo called Amateur Transplants.
I saw Amateur Transplants the day after the 2010 general election and they were fantastic. The interesting thing is, those two songs aren’t the most offensive.
I think it’s sad that comedy is being destroyed by wokeness. Neither Adam Kay or Suman Biswas would approve of the stuff they sing about. But like Jimmy Carr, they’re act plays on our prejudices and has a cynical view of the world.
Adam Kay's book, which I quite liked, nevertheless has some rather schoolboy 'humour' misogynism about it.
But on the broader point, it is absolutely NOT the case that all topics are fair game. Any decent human being doesn't make jokes about the deaths of people: whether Romas or children, for example.
I'm weary of the attack on 'wokeness' being used as a front for plain nasty, vile, human behaviour.
The Nasty Party is back.
(But I expect when Sandpit gets up in Dubai he will still like your post, so that's alright then)
Wow. Standards in Britain have sunk low.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/going-hurt-review-ben-whishaw-delivers-warts-and-all-portrait/
'The book was wildly popular, selling 2.5 million copies to date. I was one of the few readers who didn’t love it. Although it was snappily written and an excellent insight into how hospitals work, there was an unpleasant streak of misogyny running through it and a sniggering schoolboy humour that no woman who has spent time on an obs and gynae ward – or “brats and t--ts”, as it is charmingly referred to – wants to read. Say, a description of a patient’s vulval condition as looking “like cauliflower florets, mate”, or the delineation between the work of midwives and doctors sometimes being “a greyer area than your nan’s vagina”. You get the picture.'
https://www.mk.ru/politics/2022/02/13/smi-zapad-zakroet-dlya-poletov-vozdushnoe-prostranstvo-ukrainy.html
"@nickschifrin
Asked whether the embassy was burning documents already and moving classified equipment, the official said the embassy was “reducing those holdings” and “reducing that volume of equipment,” without being specific.
1:56 PM · Feb 12, 2022"
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-to-head-to-scotland-for-start-of-levelling-up-tour-as-he-battles-to-survive-partygate-12540726
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1492742551392161792?s=20&t=3UlNi8ge7VGay55J8beQcg
What is interesting in regards to the charge of misogyny is the high ratio of male to female obstetricians and gynaecologists here compared with the United States (source: nothing more scientific than a quick glance at a couple of hospital websites). ETA: see below; even if wrong about UK vs USA, male dominance of the speciality was historically true, partly because nearly all doctors of any sort were male.
Having binge-watched the series last night, the overwhelming impression was that this was Cardiac Arrest updated, even down to the [redacted: spoiler]. That and wondering why the protagonist's rich parents did not buy him a better car.
OK here are a couple of references about the increasing number of female O&G doctors:-
USA https://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-male-gynos-20180307-htmlstory.html
Australia & New Zealand (with the interesting wrinkle that until recently most would train in Britain) https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajo.12969
Canada & US https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296153/
Of course, much of this increased feminisation might simply reflect the far greater numbers of female medical students (and therefore doctors entering the profession) in recent times. The point is that this might be expected to reduce and eventually remove any residual misogyny.
Only slightly, mind. He’s still the useful idiot of a mass murdering twat who would look much better having a nasty and amusing accident with a ten foot pole that goes up his arse.
I recall going up to Maternity on one occasion and being overheard by the Nurse Manager who wanted to know 'what that man was doing in my unit"!
Having said that I used to have to visit, in a professional capacity, Family Planning Clinics and have said here before that I found the exclusively female staff some of the most pleasant people with whom I ever worked. Somewhat 'earthy' humour on occasion, but none the worse for that.
Mr. JohnL, that does remind me a little of the surprising finding (I heard decades ago, so no source alas) that female jurors are more likely to find an accused rapist innocent, whereas male jurors are more likely to find them guilty.
On at least that occasion, individuals seem content to, if they have a bias, be against their own sex rather than the other.
What’s weird is if this was Radio 4 she would have been fine giving nuanced answers.
Consider her options:
1. Say they recognise sovereignty - real downside if it’s a quirky babe for Donblas
2. Bristle and push back - establishes the principle; downside risk is she looks a little silly
3. Ignore/redefine the question “we’re not here to talk about that. We’re here to talk about X”
I personally would have gone with option 3. But I’m not going to condemn her for going with option 2 and getting called out.
She looks a little silly and gets mocked on Twitter. So f***ng what? Lavrov is an arse and got a cheap shot in. Real world consequence zero.
Sometimes people just need to ignore the trolls.
Unfortunately she isn’t very smart.
That’s a good lesson to learn for a very low cost.
So it’s a win/win?
Biden is playing for Crimea.
Diplomacy is her job. The moment required the upmost care. This is they very essence of her responsibility. Instead of using language with the precision of a surgeon’s knife she bluffed it. Not good.