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
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
Stalin had a sense of humour. Rather a crude one, admittedly, but it was there.
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
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
Stalin had a sense of humour. Rather a crude one, admittedly, but it was there.
Mao also had one, on similar terms.
Whereas Hitler thought Charlie Chaplin was funny. Until the great dictator anyway
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.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
What makes you think the Russians would benefit from her being replaced by somebody who could actually understand a briefing note and read a map?
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
What makes you think the Russians would benefit from her being replaced by somebody who could actually understand a briefing note and read a map?
They are seeking dissension and disruption on the West’s side. If we are sniping at each other we are t facing them down which is what we need to do right now.
The internet is a tool that they use to great effect.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
What makes you think the Russians would benefit from her being replaced by somebody who could actually understand a briefing note and read a map?
They are seeking dissension and disruption on the West’s side. If we are sniping at each other we are t facing them down which is what we need to do right now.
The internet is a tool that they use to great effect.
Or perhaps, we need our politicians to avoid giving them free ammunition.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
What makes you think the Russians would benefit from her being replaced by somebody who could actually understand a briefing note and read a map?
They are seeking dissension and disruption on the West’s side. If we are sniping at each other we are t facing them down which is what we need to do right now.
The internet is a tool that they use to great effect.
Yes. They used it to prepare for the truss meeting which is why they were able to say she said nothing she hasn't said on Twitter. She uses it for fox hat piccies
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
To really defend British interests we might put someone half decent in such an important role. Bring back Hague? At the moment I suspect the Russians are not remotely concerned by either Truss or Boris.
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
"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.
Fizzy Lizzy misspeaks all the time, certainly.
At least we've moved on from 'How do we know it's true, it's only been reported in a Putinist mouthpiece'.
Is Liz Truss the best person in the country to be Foreign Sec right now? No. The Tory Party? No. Parliament? No. The cabinet? No.
Better than Boris though.
Here's a question. Out of all the candidates realistically available, who would make the best Foreign Secretary? Tugendhat? Wallace? Blunt?
Wallace, but he needs to stay where he is right now. Add Hunt, he would be better, although he’s not gaffe free.
Although I would prefer Hunt to either Truss or Johnson - he at least has a functioning brain - I'm instinctively distrustful of him after his behaviour towards Murdoch during the Sky takeover process. That's presumably why I forgot him.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
To really defend British interests we might put someone half decent in such an important role. Bring back Hague? At the moment I suspect the Russians are not remotely concerned by either Truss or Boris.
We are more influential than you might realise behind the scenes. Our job is to keep the international coalition aligned and to demonstrate that it’s not just a US-Russian thing. That’s part of the reason we were early and public in arming Ukraine - we normalised that response.
Militarily we have some useful capabilities to contribute but of course we can’t defeat Russia without American might.
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
That would have been the wrong response - it would have given permission for the military build up.
The right response would have been that they may be sovereign Russian territory but that does not give them the right to use them as a launchpad to threaten a sovereign and independent country.
It was neither in his own interests, nor his constituents interests. I think he miscalculated, and said so at the time.
It is unquestionably in the interests of his constituents for BoZo to be removed.
Even if you ignore his unsuitability for the role, you can't ignore the fact that he has appointed the worst cabinet in living memory.
When he goes, they go, and that would be good for everybody
And in any event, even if the clown hangs on for a bit, the Tories would be mad to send him into another election and remind everyone, in a year or two’s time, of the pandemic and all of our privations and his largesse. Taking a longer view, Aaron will be on the right side of history. And if his seat isn’t holdable, what does his long term career prospects matter anyway?
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
To really defend British interests we might put someone half decent in such an important role. Bring back Hague? At the moment I suspect the Russians are not remotely concerned by either Truss or Boris.
We are more influential than you might realise behind the scenes. Our job is to keep the international coalition aligned and to demonstrate that it’s not just a US-Russian thing. That’s part of the reason we were early and public in arming Ukraine - we normalised that response.
Militarily we have some useful capabilities to contribute but of course we can’t defeat Russia without American might.
And to ensure we play that role effectively we need a Foreign Secretary who doesn't make basic errors and ends up looking like a complete fool.
Saying that Truss is a damaging presence who is incapable of getting the basics right and has made things somewhat worse is nothing to do with playing a Russian game. It's a statement of fact.
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
The problem is really with the low quality politicians who rise through our political system. Truss isn't by any means the worst, at least she listens to advice. But generally, they are completely and totally outwitted by the Russian and Chinese state, to the point where they are absolutely floored in situations like this. The reversal from Thatcher's jaunts to Moscow in the late 80's could not be more absolute. It is only hard power that talks, the 3.5 million NATO troops and its military hardware, and the idea that it could be used that acts as a brake on Russian ambitions.
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
That would have been the wrong response - it would have given permission for the military build up.
The right response would have been that they may be sovereign Russian territory but that does not give them the right to use them as a launchpad to threaten a sovereign and independent country.
To which they would have responded that isn't their intention.
They would have been lying, of course, but we would have no way of proving it.
It was an elephant trap on a number of levels, but if she said what she's reported as saying that's still a barely believable gaffe and in a proper government, would be a resigning matter.
'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.
The book is highly readable and diverting. The “de-gloving”. My God
There is some laddish or black humour, but then, all the junior doctors I’ve ever known indulge in black humour, it’s a coping mechanism, like soldiers joking about corpses, making light of an otherwise horrible job. Did you never tell an off-colour joke in your training, in some particularly gruesome scenario? You must have been a bore if you did not
Because of this authentic sense, the book works. It’s maybe not a masterpiece for the ages, but it is a fine insight into modern doctoring on the front line. I can see why it sold
I’ve no idea how the adaptation works, not watched it, and will not. The book does not scream “adapt me”. There is no story
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
That would have been the wrong response - it would have given permission for the military build up.
The right response would have been that they may be sovereign Russian territory but that does not give them the right to use them as a launchpad to threaten a sovereign and independent country.
To which they would have responded that isn't their intention.
They would have been lying, of course, but we would have no way of proving it.
It was an elephant trap on a number of levels, but if she said what she's reported as saying that's still a barely believable gaffe and in a proper government, would be a resigning matter.
All she needed to do was keep it high level and keep restating she was here because she was concerned about the independence of Ukraine and to understand Russian concerns better in the hope of building a stronger relationship for all. Heck, she could have mentioned that this was getting in the way of a Brexit deal.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
And it is all right. The donor did not get the lottery job. It was given to Blondel Cluff, whose husband, the paper explains, "served as chairman of The Spectator during Johnson’s time as editor". Nothing to see here. Well, apart from that.
If Truss had wanted to get one over on Lavrov she might have said something like “ 200k troops on the Ukrainian border is not exactly a vote of confidence in Russian diplomacy. But I’m here to help.”
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Yeah, so don’t try. Keep it high level. Do what you do on Radio 4.
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
I think OGH is right on this, and Johnsons popularity a myth.
"Mr Johnson remains in office because Tory mps think he has a unique ability to win over places that never voted Conservative before 2019. In fact, Mr Johnson’s personal ratings in these “red wall” seats were lower than Mrs May’s in 2017. Dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s far-left predecessor, rather than love of Mr Johnson handed the Conservatives victory. Mr Johnson stays in power despite wretched ratings thanks to the endurance of that myth."
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Good thing You spend your time knapping dildos then, rather than in knife edge diplomacy.
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.
Whilst I applaud your desire to find a silver lining, I fear if she learned Lavrov was a tricky customer for the first time at that moment someone really isn’t doing their job.
It wasn't a trick by Lavrov. The naming of Voronezh and Rostov was in the context of, and immediately following Lavrov saying that Russia could do what it likes within its Sovereign territory. A smarter cookie would have known this, and said that of course Russia could do what it likes in its sovereign territory, as can Ukraine do what it likes in its.
The problem is really with the low quality politicians who rise through our political system. Truss isn't by any means the worst, at least she listens to advice. But generally, they are completely and totally outwitted by the Russian and Chinese state, to the point where they are absolutely floored in situations like this. The reversal from Thatcher's jaunts to Moscow in the late 80's could not be more absolute. It is only hard power that talks, the 3.5 million NATO troops and its military hardware, and the idea that it could be used that acts as a brake on Russian ambitions.
Have they REALLY got worse?
“At the Versailles Conference in 1919, British PM David Lloyd George advised Italy that it could make up for the commercial losses entailed by the treaty by increasing the production of its banana crop. Italy, of course, had no such crop.“
incidentally this hotel, where I write on the bar top now, by the crashing sea - sob, I have to come home - boasts Lloyd George as an ex guest. Alongside Scarlet Johanssen, Emperoor Hirohito, Gregory Peck, Prince Phillip, Duke Ellington, Bo Derek, Richard Nixon, Gandhi, Bernard Shaw, Dennis Wheatley, Nehru, Yuri Gagarin, Laurence Oliver, Stephen Spielberg and Che Guevara
It is the most brilliantly diverse list of famous guests I have encountered
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it 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.
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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Good thing You spend your time knapping dildos then, rather than in knife edge diplomacy.
How do you know I am not leading a double life, and merely POSING as a lithic sex toy knapper?
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Good thing You spend your time knapping dildos then, rather than in knife edge diplomacy.
How do you know I am not leading a double life, and merely POSING as a lithic sex toy knapper?
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
I agree and I’m surprised how readily people are dismissing it. I expect we will hear a lot more of,it.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
These are not suburbs of Moscow. They are where troops are massing near the Ukraine border, as should have been obvious to the Foreign Secretary if she'd so much as glanced at a map on the flight over, or read the brief, or even watched GB News.
Soon Truss apologists will be blaming the interpreter for not warning her.
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
The fact that a recording hasn't been on the media yet, is interesting.
That's a pretty staggering figure and not in a good way. One thing they need to be a little careful of though is they don't get obsessed with particular groups at the expense of the overall picture, a la Gordon Brown. 80% of black people having less than £1500 in savings is certainly bad, but there are on their own figures 22,455,726 people in that category - of which at least two thirds must be white for purely demographic reasons.
Of course, that in itself doesn't tell the full story. Large numbers of BAME people live in cities, often expensive ones like London, where £1500 goes rather less far than it would in say, Consett or Whitehaven.
But if you focus on just one aspect you run the risk of missing the complexity of the situation and creating even more complex problems down the line.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
I would certainly know Rostov is in Russia and a few soccer games were played in Rostov on Don in the 2018 World Cup.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
These are not suburbs of Moscow. They are where troops are massing near the Ukraine border, as should have been obvious to the Foreign Secretary if she'd so much as glanced at a map on the flight over, or read the brief, or even watched GB News.
Soon Truss apologists will be blaming the interpreter for not warning her.
Truss Apologist sounds like a brilliantly niche new fetish on Fetlife.com
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
I agree and I’m surprised how readily people are dismissing it. I expect we will hear a lot more of,it.
One of the subtle benefits of the older form of political journalism- really long-form interviews and whatnot- was that politicians who just bluffed were fairly quickly exposed. It kept them match-fit for situations like this.
If la Truss doesn't know about the geography of the global trouble spot, she should find out in advance and of she can't keep it in her head, she shouldn't be Foreign Secretary.
The Sunday Rawnsley: Eager to wound, but unwilling to strike, Sir John and Mrs May reflect the state of the party they once led. It is simultaneously infuriated and paralysed by a scandal that is also a crisis. This leaves the Tory party and with it the government, marooned in no man’s land.
Waiting to see if the polls are verified by a heavy defeat at the May local elections “puts our councillors in the executioner’s tumbril”, as another MP puts it. The prime minister is solely focused on trying to save his own skin. He always governed from one week to the next. Now he governs from one day to the next.
One Conservative MP reports: “The phrase you hear a lot of in the tearoom is ‘we can’t go on like this’.” So I asked him whether he had submitted a letter calling for a confidence vote. He confessed that he hadn’t, before arguing that it was too early to move. He was choosing to go on like this… there is the substantial group who want Mr Johnson gone, but are hesitant about acting. “One of the worst outcomes is that we get a confidence vote and he narrowly survives it,” says one senior Tory. “If he wins by just one vote, he will stay. Anyone else would walk, but he will stay.”
The Conservative party will pay a penalty for its prevarication – indeed, it already is paying. The longer this goes on, the more this looks like a lawless government that thinks rules are for everyone else and the deeper the reputational damage sustained by the Tories. “A month ago, this was hurting only Boris,” says one former cabinet minister. “Now, it is hurting the whole government. The more they put up ministers to make a defence of him, the more it damages all of us.”
So I asked this senior Tory whether he had put in a confidence letter and discovered he was another who hadn’t done so yet. The government will remain trapped in this nightmare no man’s land, and the country with it, until Tory MPs cease equivocating and a critical mass of them decide to bring things to a head.
That's a pretty staggering figure and not in a good way. One thing they need to be a little careful of though is they don't get obsessed with particular groups at the expense of the overall picture, a la Gordon Brown. 80% of black people having less than £1500 in savings is certainly bad, but there are on their own figures 22,455,726 people in that category - of which at least two thirds must be white for purely demographic reasons.
Of course, that in itself doesn't tell the full story. Large numbers of BAME people live in cities, often expensive ones like London, where £1500 goes rather less far than it would in say, Consett or Whitehaven.
But if you focus on just one aspect you run the risk of missing the complexity of the situation and creating even more complex problems down the line.
I’d be interested in the specifics of the new race equality act as mentioned but have a feeling it will be not,only divisive but a return to New labours/Gordon browns approach of managing problems rather than solving them.
There is a move in parts of the labour movement as well to pay climate reparations to the developing world and slavery reparations to the developing world. Fringe at the moment but could be a vote loser if it becomes mainstream.
'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.
The book is highly readable and diverting. The “de-gloving”. My God
There is some laddish or black humour, but then, all the junior doctors I’ve ever known indulge in black humour, it’s a coping mechanism, like soldiers joking about corpses, making light of an otherwise horrible job. Did you never tell an off-colour joke in your training, in some particularly gruesome scenario? You must have been a bore if you did not
Because of this authentic sense, the book works. It’s maybe not a masterpiece for the ages, but it is a fine insight into modern doctoring on the front line. I can see why it sold
I’ve no idea how the adaptation works, not watched it, and will not. The book does not scream “adapt me”. There is no story
I think that's right.
I enjoyed the book, though not as much as a couple of similar books such as Do No Harm. But the adaptation (or at least the first episode) is somehow rather over the top and paints Kay in a much worse light than the book. An odd choice for a TV adaptation.
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
I agree and I’m surprised how readily people are dismissing it. I expect we will hear a lot more of,it.
it would be quite PIQUANT if the Truss Mistake turns out to be the casus belli of World War Three
I see TASS are actually using it
10 FEB, 20:39 Top British diplomat refused to recognize Voronezh and Rostov as part of Russia — source
After Truss’ statements urging Moscow to move its forces, located on Russia’s soil, away from the border with Ukraine, Sergey Lavrov asked his British counterpart if she recognized Russia’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov Regions
Even as a committed TRUSS APOLOGIST I admit that kicking off the Final Global Apocalypse would be unideal for her aspirations to lead the UK Tory Party
The Sunday Rawnsley: Eager to wound, but unwilling to strike, Sir John and Mrs May reflect the state of the party they once led. It is simultaneously infuriated and paralysed by a scandal that is also a crisis. This leaves the Tory party and with it the government, marooned in no man’s land.
That's a pretty staggering figure and not in a good way. One thing they need to be a little careful of though is they don't get obsessed with particular groups at the expense of the overall picture, a la Gordon Brown. 80% of black people having less than £1500 in savings is certainly bad, but there are on their own figures 22,455,726 people in that category - of which at least two thirds must be white for purely demographic reasons.
Of course, that in itself doesn't tell the full story. Large numbers of BAME people live in cities, often expensive ones like London, where £1500 goes rather less far than it would in say, Consett or Whitehaven.
But if you focus on just one aspect you run the risk of missing the complexity of the situation and creating even more complex problems down the line.
I’d be interested in the specifics of the new race equality act as mentioned but have a feeling it will be not,only divisive but a return to New labours/Gordon browns approach of managing problems rather than solving them.
There is a move in parts of the labour movement as well to pay climate reparations to the developing world and slavery reparations to the developing world. Fringe at the moment but could be a vote loser if mainstream.
If climate reparations were linked to, say, afforestation in the Amazon basin and proper water management in the Middle East that might not be the stupidest of ideas. It won't be, because that's not the way these people's minds work, but you can see how it might be beneficial.
With slavery reparations, I suppose one question would be whether the African subset of the slave trade would pay back the value of the items they were given in exchange for the slaves...
The Sunday Rawnsley: Eager to wound, but unwilling to strike, Sir John and Mrs May reflect the state of the party they once led. It is simultaneously infuriated and paralysed by a scandal that is also a crisis. This leaves the Tory party and with it the government, marooned in no man’s land.
Waiting to see if the polls are verified by a heavy defeat at the May local elections “puts our councillors in the executioner’s tumbril”, as another MP puts it. The prime minister is solely focused on trying to save his own skin. He always governed from one week to the next. Now he governs from one day to the next.
One Conservative MP reports: “The phrase you hear a lot of in the tearoom is ‘we can’t go on like this’.” So I asked him whether he had submitted a letter calling for a confidence vote. He confessed that he hadn’t, before arguing that it was too early to move. He was choosing to go on like this… there is the substantial group who want Mr Johnson gone, but are hesitant about acting. “One of the worst outcomes is that we get a confidence vote and he narrowly survives it,” says one senior Tory. “If he wins by just one vote, he will stay. Anyone else would walk, but he will stay.”
The Conservative party will pay a penalty for its prevarication – indeed, it already is paying. The longer this goes on, the more this looks like a lawless government that thinks rules are for everyone else and the deeper the reputational damage sustained by the Tories. “A month ago, this was hurting only Boris,” says one former cabinet minister. “Now, it is hurting the whole government. The more they put up ministers to make a defence of him, the more it damages all of us.”
So I asked this senior Tory whether he had put in a confidence letter and discovered he was another who hadn’t done so yet. The government will remain trapped in this nightmare no man’s land, and the country with it, until Tory MPs cease equivocating and a critical mass of them decide to bring things to a head.
What a bunch of spineless wasters most Tory MPs are.
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
I think OGH is right on this, and Johnsons popularity a myth.
"Mr Johnson remains in office because Tory mps think he has a unique ability to win over places that never voted Conservative before 2019. In fact, Mr Johnson’s personal ratings in these “red wall” seats were lower than Mrs May’s in 2017. Dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s far-left predecessor, rather than love of Mr Johnson handed the Conservatives victory. Mr Johnson stays in power despite wretched ratings thanks to the endurance of that myth."
The redwall voted for Boris to get Brexit done in 2019. Dislike of Corbyn was more of a factor in keeping Tory Remainers voting Tory in 2019.
The redwall voted Labour and for Corbyn in 2017, it was only Boris' commitment to get Brexit done that saw it switch in 2019 after neither May nor Corbyn got Brexit done in the hung parliament of 2017 to 2019
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
Remember Mr Cameron's porridge factory visit? A minor classic of its kind.
"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.
Within minutes of her saying that, an edited clip would have been on all the Russian controlled media.
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
The issue with that is that what she's said, if she said it and if they had a recording, would actually be more useful for them. She's now accused of saying the West doesn't recognise Russian sovereignty over Russian territory.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
I agree and I’m surprised how readily people are dismissing it. I expect we will hear a lot more of,it.
it would be quite PIQUANT if the Truss Mistake turns out to be the casus belli of World War Three
I see TASS are actually using it
10 FEB, 20:39 Top British diplomat refused to recognize Voronezh and Rostov as part of Russia — source
After Truss’ statements urging Moscow to move its forces, located on Russia’s soil, away from the border with Ukraine, Sergey Lavrov asked his British counterpart if she recognized Russia’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov Regions
Even as a committed TRUSS APOLOGIST I admit that kicking off the Final Global Apocalypse would be unideal for her aspirations to lead the UK Tory Party
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
There’s nothing new in politics. When Blair ascended to the thrown became prime minister and entered no 10, it wasn’t random folk of the street who turned up to cheer him in, it was labour staffers and party members.
This debate about @Tissue_Price supposedly making a "miscalculation".
Some issues aren't political calculation, they are right and wrong.
Boris Johnson is wrong,. His actions are indefensible. Calling them out cannot be a "miscalculation".
We all need to stop thinking about micro level politics and go macro. Tissue is right on this one because its a very simple moral issue. He will be proven to be right. Ping is wrong long term - I accept there may be some short-term political pain for Tissue but that really isn't the issue or the driver.
That's a pretty staggering figure and not in a good way. One thing they need to be a little careful of though is they don't get obsessed with particular groups at the expense of the overall picture, a la Gordon Brown. 80% of black people having less than £1500 in savings is certainly bad, but there are on their own figures 22,455,726 people in that category - of which at least two thirds must be white for purely demographic reasons.
Of course, that in itself doesn't tell the full story. Large numbers of BAME people live in cities, often expensive ones like London, where £1500 goes rather less far than it would in say, Consett or Whitehaven.
But if you focus on just one aspect you run the risk of missing the complexity of the situation and creating even more complex problems down the line.
I’d be interested in the specifics of the new race equality act as mentioned but have a feeling it will be not,only divisive but a return to New labours/Gordon browns approach of managing problems rather than solving them.
There is a move in parts of the labour movement as well to pay climate reparations to the developing world and slavery reparations to the developing world. Fringe at the moment but could be a vote loser if mainstream.
If climate reparations were linked to, say, afforestation in the Amazon basin and proper water management in the Middle East that might not be the stupidest of ideas. It won't be, because that's not the way these people's minds work, but you can see how it might be beneficial.
With slavery reparations, I suppose one question would be whether the African subset of the slave trade would pay back the value of the items they were given in exchange for the slaves...
I could see how a climate fund to aid supporting the environment globally would be a good thing and something that is in all of our interests ad could sit alongside the international aid budget but, you’re right, this would not happen.
Slavery reparations is a very complex area and we have a very Western European outlook on it.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
1. Oh fuck right off. She is a narcissistic vacuous self-promoting cretin. 2. The Russians don't really care what we think - Britain has reduced itself to a bit player having left the big stage. Compare and contrast how Russia is dealing with France / EU with how it is dealing with the UK.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
These are not suburbs of Moscow. They are where troops are massing near the Ukraine border, as should have been obvious to the Foreign Secretary if she'd so much as glanced at a map on the flight over, or read the brief, or even watched GB News.
Soon Truss apologists will be blaming the interpreter for not warning her.
It's a shame they aren't big cheese producing regions, or she'd have been all over it.
'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.
The book is highly readable and diverting. The “de-gloving”. My God
There is some laddish or black humour, but then, all the junior doctors I’ve ever known indulge in black humour, it’s a coping mechanism, like soldiers joking about corpses, making light of an otherwise horrible job. Did you never tell an off-colour joke in your training, in some particularly gruesome scenario? You must have been a bore if you did not
Because of this authentic sense, the book works. It’s maybe not a masterpiece for the ages, but it is a fine insight into modern doctoring on the front line. I can see why it sold
I’ve no idea how the adaptation works, not watched it, and will not. The book does not scream “adapt me”. There is no story
I think that's right.
I enjoyed the book, though not as much as a couple of similar books such as Do No Harm. But the adaptation (or at least the first episode) is somehow rather over the top and paints Kay in a much worse light than the book. An odd choice for a TV adaptation.
I also enjoyed Do No Harm: an excellent read. Not as blackly entertaining, perhaps, as Adam Kay, but just as enlightening
I like this fashion for autobiographical non fiction by experts, explaining their lives and jobs. But, fuck, these days you risk total cancellation unless you make it absurdly Woke
Look at the fate of poor Kate Clanchy. Her memoir of life as a teacher was brilliant and moving. Better and more important, I would say, than either of the above books. Certainly better written
And her fate? Cancelled to fuck. Non publishable. Finished. Her books have literally been discontinued
You can now only pre-order it, as it has been pulped by Picador and some tiny new publisher has taken it over, despite it being a huge bestseller and winning multiple prizes
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
1. Oh fuck right off. She is a narcissistic vacuous self-promoting cretin.
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
I think OGH is right on this, and Johnsons popularity a myth.
"Mr Johnson remains in office because Tory mps think he has a unique ability to win over places that never voted Conservative before 2019. In fact, Mr Johnson’s personal ratings in these “red wall” seats were lower than Mrs May’s in 2017. Dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s far-left predecessor, rather than love of Mr Johnson handed the Conservatives victory. Mr Johnson stays in power despite wretched ratings thanks to the endurance of that myth."
The redwall voted for Boris to get Brexit done in 2019. Dislike of Corbyn was more of a factor in keeping Tory Remainers voting Tory in 2019.
The redwall voted Labour and for Corbyn in 2017, it was only Boris' commitment to get Brexit done that saw it switch in 2019 after neither May nor Corbyn got Brexit done in the hung parliament of 2017 to 2019
You underestimate how much heavy lifting was done in 2017. Picking at random from several red wall areas, in Newcastle Under Lyme, Tory vote up 11%. In NW Durham, up 12%. In Blyth Valley, up 15%. In Wakefield, up 10%. In Leigh, up 13%.
Without those swings, those seats would not even have begun to be in play in 2019. And true, in the case of NW Durham, or Leigh, there still needed to be hefty swings to the Tories to take them. But in Wakefield and Newcastle under Lyme, the dial didn't move much at all.
What foiled them in 2017 was the way large chunks of the collapsing UKIP vote broke back to Labour. In Newcastle UL, for example, the Labour vote rose substantially as well (albeit not as far as the Tory vote). That was less of a problem in 2019 where Johnson really was the only game in town to leave the EU, however ineptly, and Corbyn had switched to a second referendum rather than straightforward withdrawal.
This debate about @Tissue_Price supposedly making a "miscalculation".
Some issues aren't political calculation, they are right and wrong.
Boris Johnson is wrong,. His actions are indefensible. Calling them out cannot be a "miscalculation".
We all need to stop thinking about micro level politics and go macro. Tissue is right on this one because its a very simple moral issue. He will be proven to be right. Ping is wrong long term - I accept there may be some short-term political pain for Tissue but that really isn't the issue or the driver.
Correct. Silent sycophancy Uber alles is not morally a great look. Nor even politically
Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters is of course BJ's strong point (not seen it in Scotland before, mind). Once he's got Doogie back on board it'll be a dawdle..
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight". This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
A week of Johnson cosplay and photo-stunts with handpicked audiences. He only appears in front of heavily vetted party placemen, never "Face to face campaigning speaking directly to voters "
I may not have been entirely serious in suggesting that this sort of thing could place in Scotland, I had thought historically that BJ had been able to connect directly with the ordinary English bloke in the street/pub/omnibus though. I'm sure I read it on here..
I think OGH is right on this, and Johnsons popularity a myth.
"Mr Johnson remains in office because Tory mps think he has a unique ability to win over places that never voted Conservative before 2019. In fact, Mr Johnson’s personal ratings in these “red wall” seats were lower than Mrs May’s in 2017. Dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s far-left predecessor, rather than love of Mr Johnson handed the Conservatives victory. Mr Johnson stays in power despite wretched ratings thanks to the endurance of that myth."
The redwall voted for Boris to get Brexit done in 2019. Dislike of Corbyn was more of a factor in keeping Tory Remainers voting Tory in 2019.
The redwall voted Labour and for Corbyn in 2017, it was only Boris' commitment to get Brexit done that saw it switch in 2019 after neither May nor Corbyn got Brexit done in the hung parliament of 2017 to 2019
A trick that can only work once since Brexit, in theory and according to the clown, IS done.
The Sunday Rawnsley: Eager to wound, but unwilling to strike, Sir John and Mrs May reflect the state of the party they once led. It is simultaneously infuriated and paralysed by a scandal that is also a crisis. This leaves the Tory party and with it the government, marooned in no man’s land.
Waiting to see if the polls are verified by a heavy defeat at the May local elections “puts our councillors in the executioner’s tumbril”, as another MP puts it. The prime minister is solely focused on trying to save his own skin. He always governed from one week to the next. Now he governs from one day to the next.
One Conservative MP reports: “The phrase you hear a lot of in the tearoom is ‘we can’t go on like this’.” So I asked him whether he had submitted a letter calling for a confidence vote. He confessed that he hadn’t, before arguing that it was too early to move. He was choosing to go on like this… there is the substantial group who want Mr Johnson gone, but are hesitant about acting. “One of the worst outcomes is that we get a confidence vote and he narrowly survives it,” says one senior Tory. “If he wins by just one vote, he will stay. Anyone else would walk, but he will stay.”
The Conservative party will pay a penalty for its prevarication – indeed, it already is paying. The longer this goes on, the more this looks like a lawless government that thinks rules are for everyone else and the deeper the reputational damage sustained by the Tories. “A month ago, this was hurting only Boris,” says one former cabinet minister. “Now, it is hurting the whole government. The more they put up ministers to make a defence of him, the more it damages all of us.”
So I asked this senior Tory whether he had put in a confidence letter and discovered he was another who hadn’t done so yet. The government will remain trapped in this nightmare no man’s land, and the country with it, until Tory MPs cease equivocating and a critical mass of them decide to bring things to a head.
What a bunch of spineless wasters most Tory MPs are.
And meanwhile, the Government achieves nothing - save to bleed the young ruthlessly in order to stuff the mouths of the elderly with gold.
Research by the Intergenerational Foundation thinktank, to be published on Monday, claims that younger workers are being unfairly targeted by the government in a “tax by stealth” caused by freezes on income tax brackets and the student loan repayment threshold, as well as April’s national insurance rise.
Low-earning young people will be hit hardest by the changes, claims the report, having a significant impact on their take home pay, disposable income and potential to save for housing and pensions.
Researchers calculate a graduate earning £27,000 a year will see their deductions rise by about 20% over the next four years – from 18% of their pay to 22%. They predict their disposable income will drop by almost 30%.
...
Labelling under-30s the “packhorse generation”, the thinktank claims they are being targeted by the government, which it says is using high inflation to pull more low-income, and especially younger, workers into taxation sooner.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
Good thing You spend your time knapping dildos then, rather than in knife edge diplomacy.
How do you know I am not leading a double life, and merely POSING as a lithic sex toy knapper?
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
1. Oh fuck right off. She is a narcissistic vacuous self-promoting cretin. 2. The Russians don't really care what we think - Britain has reduced itself to a bit player having left the big stage. Compare and contrast how Russia is dealing with France / EU with how it is dealing with the UK.
As with Ukraine. Ukrainian journalists didn’t bother asking Bozo a single question during his recent visit, focusing all their Qs on their own PM, and neither UK nor our imbecilic leader made much impression on the Ukrainian media.
Hands up how many PB-ears would have correctly guessed that Voronezh and Rostov are in Russia not Ukraine (or some other Russiany-but-not-actually-Russian place?
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
The fiendish Russian asked a question about Russian territory to the foreigner who flew over to lecture Russia about territorial claims. The location of Russia's troops is hardly irrelevant to the issue she flew in to remonstrate over. She should have spent more time reading her brief and less doing Thatcher cosplay.
She made us like like what we are - irrelevant idiots. Meanwhile the EU fronted by Macron in control both of a brief and a brain continues to represent European interests whilst the supposedly senile Biden does the same for NATO.
The Sunday Rawnsley: Eager to wound, but unwilling to strike, Sir John and Mrs May reflect the state of the party they once led. It is simultaneously infuriated and paralysed by a scandal that is also a crisis. This leaves the Tory party and with it the government, marooned in no man’s land.
Waiting to see if the polls are verified by a heavy defeat at the May local elections “puts our councillors in the executioner’s tumbril”, as another MP puts it. The prime minister is solely focused on trying to save his own skin. He always governed from one week to the next. Now he governs from one day to the next.
One Conservative MP reports: “The phrase you hear a lot of in the tearoom is ‘we can’t go on like this’.” So I asked him whether he had submitted a letter calling for a confidence vote. He confessed that he hadn’t, before arguing that it was too early to move. He was choosing to go on like this… there is the substantial group who want Mr Johnson gone, but are hesitant about acting. “One of the worst outcomes is that we get a confidence vote and he narrowly survives it,” says one senior Tory. “If he wins by just one vote, he will stay. Anyone else would walk, but he will stay.”
The Conservative party will pay a penalty for its prevarication – indeed, it already is paying. The longer this goes on, the more this looks like a lawless government that thinks rules are for everyone else and the deeper the reputational damage sustained by the Tories. “A month ago, this was hurting only Boris,” says one former cabinet minister. “Now, it is hurting the whole government. The more they put up ministers to make a defence of him, the more it damages all of us.”
So I asked this senior Tory whether he had put in a confidence letter and discovered he was another who hadn’t done so yet. The government will remain trapped in this nightmare no man’s land, and the country with it, until Tory MPs cease equivocating and a critical mass of them decide to bring things to a head.
What a bunch of spineless wasters most Tory MPs are.
And meanwhile, the Government achieves nothing - save to bleed the young ruthlessly in order to stuff the mouths of the elderly with gold.
Research by the Intergenerational Foundation thinktank, to be published on Monday, claims that younger workers are being unfairly targeted by the government in a “tax by stealth” caused by freezes on income tax brackets and the student loan repayment threshold, as well as April’s national insurance rise.
Low-earning young people will be hit hardest by the changes, claims the report, having a significant impact on their take home pay, disposable income and potential to save for housing and pensions.
Researchers calculate a graduate earning £27,000 a year will see their deductions rise by about 20% over the next four years – from 18% of their pay to 22%. They predict their disposable income will drop by almost 30%.
...
Labelling under-30s the “packhorse generation”, the thinktank claims they are being targeted by the government, which it says is using high inflation to pull more low-income, and especially younger, workers into taxation sooner.
It was neither in his own interests, nor his constituents interests. I think he miscalculated, and said so at the time.
It is unquestionably in the interests of his constituents for BoZo to be removed.
Even if you ignore his unsuitability for the role, you can't ignore the fact that he has appointed the worst cabinet in living memory.
When he goes, they go, and that would be good for everybody
And in any event, even if the clown hangs on for a bit, the Tories would be mad to send him into another election and remind everyone, in a year or two’s time, of the pandemic and all of our privations and his largesse. Taking a longer view, Aaron will be on the right side of history. And if his seat isn’t holdable, what does his long term career prospects matter anyway?
He might do a David Amess and run off to a safer seat.
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
1. Oh fuck right off. She is a narcissistic vacuous self-promoting cretin. 2. The Russians don't really care what we think - Britain has reduced itself to a bit player having left the big stage. Compare and contrast how Russia is dealing with France / EU with how it is dealing with the UK.
As far as I can see, Russia’s dealings with France have consisted of entertaining Macron to a bizarre meeting across the longest table in Europe, asking him to get tested, indulging his popinjay pretensions as a leader of peace and the man who brokered a new age of global harmony…. And then invading Ukraine anyway (if the diplomatic rumours are right)
He’s gonna look a total twerp if they DO invade, now. Dare I say it: even more than Ms Truss
"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.
Sure. She made a misstep on negotiations. Cost: zero
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do? 2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
1. Oh fuck right off. She is a narcissistic vacuous self-promoting cretin.
Kinder politics.
The alternative apparently is that we all tearily clutch our hankies as Maggie Truss waves our brave boys off to war from Southampton Dock.
Calling out an incompetent simpleton making a laughing stock of this country on the international stage is not siding with the Russians. If we wanted to play a role in this crisis she has torpedoed it.
Comments
Mao also had one, on similar terms.
Even if you ignore his unsuitability for the role, you can't ignore the fact that he has appointed the worst cabinet in living memory.
When he goes, they go, and that would be good for everybody
Now we have a choice:
1. Do we mock, undermine and weaken the Foreign Secretary at a time of serious international tension as the Russian hope we will do?
2. Do we not do what the Russians want us to do?
The internet is a tool that they use to great effect.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,editors-column-an-environment-of-distrust-18463
The Tory Party? No.
Parliament? No.
The cabinet? No.
Better than Boris though.
At least we've moved on from 'How do we know it's true, it's only been reported in a Putinist mouthpiece'.
I'm not referring to Spiked btw.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ipl-2022-auction-liam-livingstone-aiden-markram-ajinkya-rahane-sold-csk-mi-kkr-rcb-dc-pbks-srh-lsg-gt-rr-1300926
Militarily we have some useful capabilities to contribute but of course we can’t defeat Russia without American might.
The right response would have been that they may be sovereign Russian territory but that does not give them the right to use them as a launchpad to threaten a sovereign and independent country.
Saying that Truss is a damaging presence who is incapable of getting the basics right and has made things somewhat worse is nothing to do with playing a Russian game. It's a statement of fact.
'He is not expected to meet his party's Scottish leader, Douglas Ross, who last month demanded his resignation, a call later backed by Tory members of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Ross's attack triggered a furious civil war between Tories at Holyrood and Westminster, after then Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - one of the PM's closest allies - branded Mr Ross "a lightweight".
This weekend it was reported that Mr Johnson attempted to begin a rapprochement with Mr Ross by sending him a handwritten birthday card two weeks after he made his resignation demand.'
'Happy burpday to Ross Douglas. Lurv u xxx'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0e512e82-8c4d-11ec-b5fe-7fe087ff87b5?shareToken=facf7035e1a285dcecaceab6548e8f7d
They would have been lying, of course, but we would have no way of proving it.
It was an elephant trap on a number of levels, but if she said what she's reported as saying that's still a barely believable gaffe and in a proper government, would be a resigning matter.
There is some laddish or black humour, but then, all the junior doctors I’ve ever known indulge in black humour, it’s a coping mechanism, like soldiers joking about corpses, making light of an otherwise horrible job. Did you never tell an off-colour joke in your training, in some particularly gruesome scenario? You must have been a bore if you did not
Because of this authentic sense, the book works. It’s maybe not a masterpiece for the ages, but it is a fine insight into modern doctoring on the front line. I can see why it sold
I’ve no idea how the adaptation works, not watched it, and will not. The book does not scream “adapt me”. There is no story
Ben Elliot introduced donor seeking Covid-19 role to Boris Johnson’s deputy chief of staff, saying he’d be “excellent candidate”
He also cc’d in party aide who could “help”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0e512e82-8c4d-11ec-b5fe-7fe087ff87b5?shareToken=b10ddb8acebbbf4bb36b0ffe9c63eda4
I’m pretty damn good at geography, but I would have not confidently known. My only knowledge is that Rostov is surely also known as “Rostov-on-Don” so that means it is probably in the Donbas, which is disputed territory of Ukraine?
The Fiendish Russians phrased the question to embarrass her. Now, arguably, the Foreign Sec should not be so “easily” tripped up, but I can see why she got it wrong
The story is not paywalled btw.
"Mr Johnson remains in office because Tory mps think he has a unique ability to win over places that never voted Conservative before 2019. In fact, Mr Johnson’s personal ratings in these “red wall” seats were lower than Mrs May’s in 2017. Dislike of Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s far-left predecessor, rather than love of Mr Johnson handed the Conservatives victory. Mr Johnson stays in power despite wretched ratings thanks to the endurance of that myth."
From an interesting piece:
The rise of unpopulism from TheEconomist https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/02/12/the-rise-of-unpopulism
With the message that the True Intentions Of The West had been Revealed - the dismemberment of Russia, supporting the Greater Ukrainian Fascists etc etc
Would you rather have two or three potential successors, dividing MPs among them, or face just one?
Have they REALLY got worse?
“At the Versailles Conference in 1919, British PM David Lloyd George advised Italy that it could make up for the commercial losses entailed by the treaty by increasing the production of its banana crop. Italy, of course, had no such crop.“
https://anecdotage.com/anecdotes/david-lloyd-george-slightly-bananas
incidentally this hotel, where I write on the bar top now, by the crashing sea - sob, I have to come home - boasts Lloyd George as an ex guest. Alongside Scarlet Johanssen, Emperoor Hirohito, Gregory Peck, Prince Phillip, Duke Ellington, Bo Derek, Richard Nixon, Gandhi, Bernard Shaw, Dennis Wheatley, Nehru, Yuri Gagarin, Laurence Oliver, Stephen Spielberg and Che Guevara
It is the most brilliantly diverse list of famous guests I have encountered
How come the Foreign Secretary doesn't?
Not so much FS as FFS.
Now this may be the Russians playing silly buggers or Lavrov misremembering after he's had one too many. But it's still pretty bad.
MMM?
https://twitter.com/anneliesedodds/status/1492560568661811209?s=21
Soon Truss apologists will be blaming the interpreter for not warning her.
Of course, that in itself doesn't tell the full story. Large numbers of BAME people live in cities, often expensive ones like London, where £1500 goes rather less far than it would in say, Consett or Whitehaven.
But if you focus on just one aspect you run the risk of missing the complexity of the situation and creating even more complex problems down the line.
If la Truss doesn't know about the geography of the global trouble spot, she should find out in advance and of she can't keep it in her head, she shouldn't be Foreign Secretary.
Waiting to see if the polls are verified by a heavy defeat at the May local elections “puts our councillors in the executioner’s tumbril”, as another MP puts it. The prime minister is solely focused on trying to save his own skin. He always governed from one week to the next. Now he governs from one day to the next.
One Conservative MP reports: “The phrase you hear a lot of in the tearoom is ‘we can’t go on like this’.” So I asked him whether he had submitted a letter calling for a confidence vote. He confessed that he hadn’t, before arguing that it was too early to move. He was choosing to go on like this… there is the substantial group who want Mr Johnson gone, but are hesitant about acting. “One of the worst outcomes is that we get a confidence vote and he narrowly survives it,” says one senior Tory. “If he wins by just one vote, he will stay. Anyone else would walk, but he will stay.”
The Conservative party will pay a penalty for its prevarication – indeed, it already is paying. The longer this goes on, the more this looks like a lawless government that thinks rules are for everyone else and the deeper the reputational damage sustained by the Tories. “A month ago, this was hurting only Boris,” says one former cabinet minister. “Now, it is hurting the whole government. The more they put up ministers to make a defence of him, the more it damages all of us.”
So I asked this senior Tory whether he had put in a confidence letter and discovered he was another who hadn’t done so yet. The government will remain trapped in this nightmare no man’s land, and the country with it, until Tory MPs cease equivocating and a critical mass of them decide to bring things to a head.
There is a move in parts of the labour movement as well to pay climate reparations to the developing world and slavery reparations to the developing world. Fringe at the moment but could be a vote loser if it becomes mainstream.
I enjoyed the book, though not as much as a couple of similar books such as Do No Harm. But the adaptation (or at least the first episode) is somehow rather over the top and paints Kay in a much worse light than the book. An odd choice for a TV adaptation.
I see TASS are actually using it
10 FEB, 20:39
Top British diplomat refused to recognize Voronezh and Rostov as part of Russia — source
After Truss’ statements urging Moscow to move its forces, located on Russia’s soil, away from the border with Ukraine, Sergey Lavrov asked his British counterpart if she recognized Russia’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov Regions
https://tass.com/world/1401173
Even as a committed TRUSS APOLOGIST I admit that kicking off the Final Global Apocalypse would be unideal for her aspirations to lead the UK Tory Party
With slavery reparations, I suppose one question would be whether the African subset of the slave trade would pay back the value of the items they were given in exchange for the slaves...
The redwall voted Labour and for Corbyn in 2017, it was only Boris' commitment to get Brexit done that saw it switch in 2019 after neither May nor Corbyn got Brexit done in the hung parliament of 2017 to 2019
ascended to the thrownbecame prime minister and entered no 10, it wasn’t random folk of the street who turned up to cheer him in, it was labour staffers and party members.Some issues aren't political calculation, they are right and wrong.
Boris Johnson is wrong,. His actions are indefensible. Calling them out cannot be a "miscalculation".
We all need to stop thinking about micro level politics and go macro. Tissue is right on this one because its a very simple moral issue. He will be proven to be right. Ping is wrong long term - I accept there may be some short-term political pain for Tissue but that really isn't the issue or the driver.
Slavery reparations is a very complex area and we have a very Western European outlook on it.
2. The Russians don't really care what we think - Britain has reduced itself to a bit player having left the big stage. Compare and contrast how Russia is dealing with France / EU with how it is dealing with the UK.
I like this fashion for autobiographical non fiction by experts, explaining their lives and jobs. But, fuck, these days you risk total cancellation unless you make it absurdly Woke
Look at the fate of poor Kate Clanchy. Her memoir of life as a teacher was brilliant and moving. Better and more important, I would say, than either of the above books. Certainly better written
And her fate? Cancelled to fuck. Non publishable. Finished. Her books have literally been discontinued
You can now only pre-order it, as it has been pulped by Picador and some tiny new publisher has taken it over, despite it being a huge bestseller and winning multiple prizes
https://unherd.com/thepost/picador-cancels-poet-kate-clanchys-books/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Some-Kids-Taught-What-They/dp/1800751672/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1644742749&sr=1-1
Without those swings, those seats would not even have begun to be in play in 2019. And true, in the case of NW Durham, or Leigh, there still needed to be hefty swings to the Tories to take them. But in Wakefield and Newcastle under Lyme, the dial didn't move much at all.
What foiled them in 2017 was the way large chunks of the collapsing UKIP vote broke back to Labour. In Newcastle UL, for example, the Labour vote rose substantially as well (albeit not as far as the Tory vote). That was less of a problem in 2019 where Johnson really was the only game in town to leave the EU, however ineptly, and Corbyn had switched to a second referendum rather than straightforward withdrawal.
Research by the Intergenerational Foundation thinktank, to be published on Monday, claims that younger workers are being unfairly targeted by the government in a “tax by stealth” caused by freezes on income tax brackets and the student loan repayment threshold, as well as April’s national insurance rise.
Low-earning young people will be hit hardest by the changes, claims the report, having a significant impact on their take home pay, disposable income and potential to save for housing and pensions.
Researchers calculate a graduate earning £27,000 a year will see their deductions rise by about 20% over the next four years – from 18% of their pay to 22%. They predict their disposable income will drop by almost 30%.
...
Labelling under-30s the “packhorse generation”, the thinktank claims they are being targeted by the government, which it says is using high inflation to pull more low-income, and especially younger, workers into taxation sooner.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/13/tory-tax-by-stealth-hit-young-people-on-low-wages-report
She made us like like what we are - irrelevant idiots. Meanwhile the EU fronted by Macron in control both of a brief and a brain continues to represent European interests whilst the supposedly senile Biden does the same for NATO.
He’s gonna look a total twerp if they DO invade, now. Dare I say it: even more than Ms Truss
MaggieTruss waves our brave boys off to war from Southampton Dock.Calling out an incompetent simpleton making a laughing stock of this country on the international stage is not siding with the Russians. If we wanted to play a role in this crisis she has torpedoed it.