I assume it's now actually properly serious with Ukraine because Sky's rolling news channel has decided it's time to actually be presenting from there.
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
The Ukraine issue is what may force me to the hair shirt position, because if that blows up they will hold back. My sketchy little bit of insider info tells me that a majority of Tory MPs have had enough of him. A lot will depend on what else comes out. If more solid evidence comes out we will probably get to 54. If that happens he is doomed. He will then be fried. The only MPs that genuinely like him are the ones that need his patronage because they are so shit they are unlikely to get a ministerial post once he has gone, eg. Dorries, Mogg.
More evidence? You are having a laugh. I am sure they have had enough of the PM but that does not mean they have the guts to take him on, or even that they have confidence in the party to select a better replacement. We are stuck with him.
They will get rid of him. Either next week, or immediately after the locals
It will be after the locals when many hard working local councillors up and down the country have been sacrificed by Tory MPs and Johnson himself to tell them all the blindingly obvious
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
Wonderful news for Johnson. Everybody is underestimating him and the Tories massively.
"Everyone" being those of us with morality, honesty, and standards?
Happy to underestimate him. I know that you CCHQ bots need a job but I do wonder if you guys get drunk and then think "what have we been reduced to?"
Any other Tory PM would have quit in disgrace by now. You're defending disgrace. Which makes you all what exactly?
You don't really care about Johnson otherwise you would have voted Labour in Teesside in 2019. You are just a provocative centrist poser who has a deranged hatred of anyone remotely on the left.
I have far more respect for the consistency of HYUFD than the affluent elitist 'centrists' on this site who don't care about policies and think politics is one big decorum game.
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
The Ukraine issue is what may force me to the hair shirt position, because if that blows up they will hold back. My sketchy little bit of insider info tells me that a majority of Tory MPs have had enough of him. A lot will depend on what else comes out. If more solid evidence comes out we will probably get to 54. If that happens he is doomed. He will then be fried. The only MPs that genuinely like him are the ones that need his patronage because they are so shit they are unlikely to get a ministerial post once he has gone, eg. Dorries, Mogg.
More evidence? You are having a laugh. I am sure they have had enough of the PM but that does not mean they have the guts to take him on, or even that they have confidence in the party to select a better replacement. We are stuck with him.
They will get rid of him. Either next week, or immediately after the locals
I hope you are right even though it will cost me a few bob if he does go. My expectations for the willingness of your average MP to do the right thing is pretty low, they generally just accept the path of least resistance and cower to the executive. We shall see.
I don't think they will get rid of him in the near future; I think he's dodged it. The Met will prevaricate, and Johnson's lawyers will dissemble and point out loopholes. He himself will stand up in the Commons and lie about being 'cleared' and, to his shame, the Speaker will let him get away with it.
I think this is exactly it.
Speaking of loop holes, does anyone know the state of play with regards to Downing Street being exempt from COVID regulations by virtue of belonging to the Crown? My understanding was that a Minister in the Lords specifically denied that this was the case, but my understanding is that what the Minister said was irrelevant. If the Government/PM/Whoever decide to fight a potential FPN, even if they don't rely on the defence in court, could a judge find them not guilty on those grounds?
Speculating massively, could this be why the PM's defence are allegedly focussing on the nature of Downing Street being a hybrid work/home area, to draw attention to the legal status of the property without having to explicitly make what would be a politically damaging defence?
Wonderful news for Johnson. Everybody is underestimating him and the Tories massively.
"Everyone" being those of us with morality, honesty, and standards?
Happy to underestimate him. I know that you CCHQ bots need a job but I do wonder if you guys get drunk and then think "what have we been reduced to?"
Any other Tory PM would have quit in disgrace by now. You're defending disgrace. Which makes you all what exactly?
You don't really care about Johnson otherwise you would have voted Labour in Teesside in 2019. You are just a provocative centrist poser who has a deranged hatred of anyone remotely on the left.
I have far more respect for the constituency HYUFD than the affluent elitist 'centrists' on this site who don't care about policies and think politics is one big decorum game.
I *DID* vote Labour in 2019. A personal vote for Dr Paul Williams who was an excellent MP (now awarded an OBE for his services to healthcare).
Am genuinely curious now. You say I have "a deranged hatred of anyone remotely on the left" in response to me pointing out that Johnson is an immoral crook and that even previous Tory PMs are denouncing him. How does that work?
I must say that if I were a European in Russia right now I'd be looking to leave. If it all kicks off in Ukraine I wouldn't want to risk being treated as one of Putin's hostages.
Passed *for now*. Thats been clear for a couple of weeks. Hasn't passed entirely though: 1 Met investigation has a long way to go and his patrons he is on the hook for a five-figure fine 2 Met investigations into Bribery relating to flatgate 3 Whatever exciting new instalment Cummings brings us 4 Tory decimation at the locals 5 Truss accidentally declares war on Belarus having got confused again
Boris Johnson says "we've got to get Nord Stream out of the bloodstream", and the 'drip feed of Russian hydrocarbons' to Germany and get ready to impose severe sanctions on Putin. Confirms he will be talking with @POTUS later.
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
The Ukraine issue is what may force me to the hair shirt position, because if that blows up they will hold back. My sketchy little bit of insider info tells me that a majority of Tory MPs have had enough of him. A lot will depend on what else comes out. If more solid evidence comes out we will probably get to 54. If that happens he is doomed. He will then be fried. The only MPs that genuinely like him are the ones that need his patronage because they are so shit they are unlikely to get a ministerial post once he has gone, eg. Dorries, Mogg.
More evidence? You are having a laugh. I am sure they have had enough of the PM but that does not mean they have the guts to take him on, or even that they have confidence in the party to select a better replacement. We are stuck with him.
They will get rid of him. Either next week, or immediately after the locals
I hope you are right even though it will cost me a few bob if he does go. My expectations for the willingness of your average MP to do the right thing is pretty low, they generally just accept the path of least resistance and cower to the executive. We shall see.
I don't think they will get rid of him in the near future; I think he's dodged it. The Met will prevaricate, and Johnson's lawyers will dissemble and point out loopholes. He himself will stand up in the Commons and lie about being 'cleared' and, to his shame, the Speaker will let him get away with it.
I think this is exactly it.
Speaking of loop holes, does anyone know the state of play with regards to Downing Street being exempt from COVID regulations by virtue of belonging to the Crown? My understanding was that a Minister in the Lords specifically denied that this was the case, but my understanding is that what the Minister said was irrelevant. If the Government/PM/Whoever decide to fight a potential FPN, even if they don't rely on the defence in court, could a judge find them not guilty on those grounds?
Speculating massively, could this be why the PM's defence are allegedly focussing on the nature of Downing Street being a hybrid work/home area, to draw attention to the legal status of the property without having to explicitly make what would be a politically damaging defence?
I can imagine they’ll try and avoid that defence if they can, it is, as you suggest, politically damaging to do so.
What I can see as a fair defence for Johnson, is that he lives there, so he can’t be guilty of *attending* a party there, although he may be guilty of the more serious offence of *organising* a party.
So long as no-one who wasn’t either working or living there was in attendance, and there weren’t emails or messages referencing parties, the PM is personally in the clear. The most of the covid rules concerned visitors, meaning people who are not living or working with you.
Now, there have been references made to Mrs Johnson organising a party in the flat, and to the staff having a party when the Johnsons were at Chequers, but those are not necessarily things that can be pinned on the PM himself.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I think there's genuine unease about a conflict on large parts of the centre-left, not just left, about a conflict. Starmer may think he's simply proving something to the centre and centre-right with avowed support of NATO, but in fact to a lot of people, not just on the left also the centre-left, the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq still very feel raw and recent, and "NATO" still equals that for them. I think that will probably account for a few per cent on the left side at a time when war is threatened, and Johnson and Truss's posturing very likely bring in a few points from the right. Finally you have the fact that partygate is off the front pages for a bit, which will always bring a few people in the centre back into either the "don't know" or soft tory camp.
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
The Ukraine issue is what may force me to the hair shirt position, because if that blows up they will hold back. My sketchy little bit of insider info tells me that a majority of Tory MPs have had enough of him. A lot will depend on what else comes out. If more solid evidence comes out we will probably get to 54. If that happens he is doomed. He will then be fried. The only MPs that genuinely like him are the ones that need his patronage because they are so shit they are unlikely to get a ministerial post once he has gone, eg. Dorries, Mogg.
More evidence? You are having a laugh. I am sure they have had enough of the PM but that does not mean they have the guts to take him on, or even that they have confidence in the party to select a better replacement. We are stuck with him.
They will get rid of him. Either next week, or immediately after the locals
I hope you are right even though it will cost me a few bob if he does go. My expectations for the willingness of your average MP to do the right thing is pretty low, they generally just accept the path of least resistance and cower to the executive. We shall see.
I don't think they will get rid of him in the near future; I think he's dodged it. The Met will prevaricate, and Johnson's lawyers will dissemble and point out loopholes. He himself will stand up in the Commons and lie about being 'cleared' and, to his shame, the Speaker will let him get away with it.
I think this is exactly it.
Speaking of loop holes, does anyone know the state of play with regards to Downing Street being exempt from COVID regulations by virtue of belonging to the Crown? My understanding was that a Minister in the Lords specifically denied that this was the case, but my understanding is that what the Minister said was irrelevant. If the Government/PM/Whoever decide to fight a potential FPN, even if they don't rely on the defence in court, could a judge find them not guilty on those grounds?
Speculating massively, could this be why the PM's defence are allegedly focussing on the nature of Downing Street being a hybrid work/home area, to draw attention to the legal status of the property without having to explicitly make what would be a politically damaging defence?
I can imagine they’ll try and avoid that defence if they can, it is, as you suggest, politically damaging to do so.
What I can see as a fair defence for Johnson, is that he lives there, so he can’t be guilty of *attending* a party there, although he may be guilty of the more serious offence of *organising* a party.
So long as no-one who wasn’t either working or living there was in attendance, and there weren’t emails or messages referencing parties, the PM is personally in the clear.
Now, there have been referenced made to Mrs Johnson organising a party in the flat, and to the staff having a party when the Johnsons were at Chequers, but those are not necessarily things that can be pinned on the PM personally.
Even our current PM would let his Missus take the blame, surely!
Passed *for now*. Thats been clear for a couple of weeks. Hasn't passed entirely though: 1 Met investigation has a long way to go and his patrons he is on the hook for a five-figure fine 2 Met investigations into Bribery relating to flatgate 3 Whatever exciting new instalment Cummings brings us 4 Tory decimation at the locals 5 Truss accidentally declares war on Belarus having got confused again
Boris Johnson says "we've got to get Nord Stream out of the bloodstream", and the 'drip feed of Russian hydrocarbons' to Germany and get ready to impose severe sanctions on Putin. Confirms he will be talking with @POTUS later.
Boris Johnson says "we've got to get Nord Stream out of the bloodstream", and the 'drip feed of Russian hydrocarbons' to Germany and get ready to impose severe sanctions on Putin. Confirms he will be talking with @POTUS later.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
Isn't the problem that so far at least there have been so very few wins and so many losses with respect of Britain post-EU?
I am one of the posters who posts stuff showing how damaged we are as a nation. But its out of mourning not out of glee. And the real stupidity is that none of the stupid we have done was driven by us leaving the EU.
Its choices we have made having decided to leave which are stupid - we could be and should be - prospering as a former EU member.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
Isn't the problem that so far at least there have been so very few wins and so many losses with respect of Britain post-EU?
I am one of the posters who posts stuff showing how damaged we are as a nation. But its out of mourning not out of glee. And the real stupidity is that none of the stupid we have done was driven by us leaving the EU.
Its choices we have made having decided to leave which are stupid - we could be and should be - prospering as a former EU member.
Yep I agree with that. Which is why I have long said we need rid of Johnson and his crowd.
I must say that if I were a European in Russia right now I'd be looking to leave. If it all kicks off in Ukraine I wouldn't want to risk being treated as one of Putin's hostages.
Ryanair are about the only western European airline still flying.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
Boris Johnson says "we've got to get Nord Stream out of the bloodstream", and the 'drip feed of Russian hydrocarbons' to Germany and get ready to impose severe sanctions on Putin. Confirms he will be talking with @POTUS later.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
He has made it certain today and that means in practical terms a change in government will not see an attempt to rejoin and that will be a positive for Starmer in some areas but a big no no in other
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Well I'm sure some people think like that, but I'm confident there are many for whom EU membership was as much about identity as Brexit was for those who voted for it.
Some of those Remainers would find any small thing to declare Brexit a failure, even if it was objectively a success overall.
It's the difficulty of reconciling these two different identities that makes the arguments so bitter. It's why antifrank's point about loser's consent was perceptive.
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Quite right. Leavers should just stick to the sovereignty issue and honestly state that they always intended this to come with the cost of economic decline. Pretending that Brexit would result in magnificent benefits were it not for silly old Boris just makes them look shifty.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
After the sack of Dick The Secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee Stating that the Government Had forfeited the confidence of the Police And could only win it back By increased gundecking of enquiries. Would it not in that case be simpler for the Police To dissolve the Government And elect another?
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Well I'm sure some people think like that, but I'm confident there are many for whom EU membership was as much about identity as Brexit was for those who voted for it.
Some of those Remainers would find any small thing to declare Brexit a failure, even if it was objectively a success overall.
It's the difficulty of reconciling these two different identities that makes the arguments so bitter. It's why antifrank's point about loser's consent was perceptive.
I'll happily look at the stats if there are meaningful ones. Just like the MPs have done. For example.
Three important points to make about the polls 1) Labour are still ahead, which is quite a shift from 2019 2) Labour has a lot of voters to squeeze as well as the Tories (e.g. those they have lost to the greens) 3) Johnson's approval rating is still really bad
We are in a very different situation to the 2010-2015 parliment. 1) Starmer is more popular than Miliband (and seen as more competent!) 2) Johnson is a lot less popular than Cameron 3) The Tories are losing their reputation for economic competence
However... 1) There are still doubts about whether Starmer is strong enough for the top job 2) Labour is still seen as the party of borrowing 3) People still don't know much about what Labour / Starmer stand for and what their vision for Britain is
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
You'd be surprised - I've got people on WhatsApp furiously agreeing with each other that within seconds of BJ being out, that the next Conservative PM *must* (and *will*) rejoin the EU without a vote. In Parliament. And join the Euro as well. Apparently as secret cabal of Rejoiners will take over the party....
Three important points to make about the polls 1) Labour are still ahead, which is quite a shift from 2019 2) Labour has a lot of voters to squeeze as well as the Tories (e.g. those they have lost to the greens) 3) Johnson's approval rating is still really bad
We are in a very different situation to the 2010-2015 parliment. 1) Starmer is more popular than Miliband (and seen as more competent!) 2) Johnson is a lot less popular than Cameron 3) The Tories are losing their reputation for economic competence
However... 1) There are still doubts about whether Starmer is strong enough for the top job 2) Labour is still seen as the party of borrowing 3) People still don't know much about what Labour / Starmer stand for and what their vision for Britain is
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I must say that if I were a European in Russia right now I'd be looking to leave. If it all kicks off in Ukraine I wouldn't want to risk being treated as one of Putin's hostages.
Ryanair are about the only western European airline still flying.
That might be because Ryanair's airport for Ukraine is nowhere near Ukraine.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
Sovereignty in theory, just like all those who support freedom in theory but call for continued lockdowns in practice.
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
Or, you could just say "Oops I got that wrong"
Not at all. I would imagine that apart from @Richard_Tyndall and a few others around the country no one really understood the dynamics and technicalities of what we could and couldn't do while in the EU. .
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
Oh good lord 'Michael Meacher' - harsh indeed but not unfair.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
Has Starmer stunned that many Remainders? The FBPE hardcore maybe, but I don't see much stunned misery here.
Practical politics for the period 2024-9 has always been a TCA with some actual co-operation. Enough to stop an unbridgeable breach. And then EEA-alike by about 2034, and then a recognition that, if you are following the rules, proper input into their making is a good idea...
The current trajectory isn't getting public backing. So why will it stick?
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
It's not just Starmer. Steve Reed, the shadow Justice Secretary says today in LabourList, "Labour under the last leadership cared more about the criminals than about their victims, but those days are well and truly over...". Now this alienates me in the same way that I wouldn't buy something from Ratner if he told me that he'd fooled me with crap but he now had the genuine article for me. I simply don't accept the premise that we cared more about criminals than victims, but is he thereby convincing e.g. The Prole? It seems not, as The Prole still thinks he's rabble.
All that said, I don't think we've seen an "apparent hard shift" in the polls. We've seen one poll with a big shift. The Opinium poll doesn't show a shift at all (10-point lead on comparable methodology).
4 weeks ago Johnson was going tomorrow 2 weeks ago is was next week now it's this year
The amount of time left is growing exponentially, like so many Covid cases. Does someone have a vaccine?
I still think it will be next week. My hair shirt of ridicule is available in the (highly possible) event that I have read all the signs wrong
Its interesting. You are not alone in predicting a rapid demise - @MoonRabbit seems similarly convinced. What signs are you seeing that suggest it? From my limited attention span, no more conservative MP's have gone public, its half term so no Parliament, and Ukraine vs Russia is taking the attention.
The Ukraine issue is what may force me to the hair shirt position, because if that blows up they will hold back. My sketchy little bit of insider info tells me that a majority of Tory MPs have had enough of him. A lot will depend on what else comes out. If more solid evidence comes out we will probably get to 54. If that happens he is doomed. He will then be fried. The only MPs that genuinely like him are the ones that need his patronage because they are so shit they are unlikely to get a ministerial post once he has gone, eg. Dorries, Mogg.
More evidence? You are having a laugh. I am sure they have had enough of the PM but that does not mean they have the guts to take him on, or even that they have confidence in the party to select a better replacement. We are stuck with him.
My feeling too. Hope I'm wrong but I rate it more than a 50% chance he fights the next election as leader. Least I'll make money if this happens. On a brighter note I'm increasingly confident he won't win it. Next PM Starmer now at 9. Still like it. Only reason I'm not doing it is I have so much already.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
He has made it certain today and that means in practical terms a change in government will not see an attempt to rejoin and that will be a positive for Starmer in some areas but a big no no in other
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
At least there's still one place where, despite Covid and lockdowns and vaxports and all the new horrible state surveillance, you can still have proper spontaneous fun, and REALLY let your hair down
"VIDEO: 🇰🇵 North Koreans march, swim for former leader Kim Jong Il's birthday
North Korea has held a series of performances including a synchronised swimming show as part of celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of the birth of late leader Kim Jong Il on February 16"
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Unfortunately Boris sacrificed the moral high ground over all that with the whole AUUKUS saga.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
It's not just Starmer. Steve Reed, the shadow Justice Secretary says today in LabourList, "Labour under the last leadership cared more about the criminals than about their victims, but those days are well and truly over...". Now this alienates me in the same way that I wouldn't buy something from Ratner if he told me that he'd fooled me with crap but he now had the genuine article for me. I simply don't accept the premise that we cared more about criminals than victims, but is he thereby convincing e.g. The Prole? It seems not, as The Prole still thinks he's rabble.
All that said, I don't think we've seen an "apparent hard shift" in the polls. We've seen one poll with a big shift. The Opinium poll doesn't show a shift at all (10-point lead on comparable methodology).
Well Steve Reed made a mistake there because a way better attack isn't criminals or victims but justice - as that is what 12 years of cuts have done to our Justice system.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
He has made it certain today and that means in practical terms a change in government will not see an attempt to rejoin and that will be a positive for Starmer in some areas but a big no no in other
While we accept difference in policy positions to the current leadership of our party, we are especially concerned in this instance to see Keir Starmer pushing not only for further engagement with NATO, but celebrating it while attacking Stop The War and other pro-peace activists"
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Truss seems to inspire some pretty misogynistic views in a few of our posters .
Is criticising a woman misogyny?
That depends on how the criticism is made.
The implication of the post seems to be that Truss is useless and shouldn't be in charge of anything important. Exactly the same post could have been made about a man, and there's nothing gendered about the way it was said.
Strikes me as Boris just repeating NATOs principle - I.e anyone can choose to join. Why Macron is trying to peg back from that is odd, considering the EU is based on similarly tightly defined principles and parameters
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
Yep, SKS is doing well imo but the big Labour lead is because of Johnson. I think the 'core' position right now, if you know what I mean, is neck and neck, maybe Labour by a nose.
Labour seem to have a lost 2% of the vote to the Greens on the YouGov poll, which is probably linked with Starmer bashing the 'Stop the War Coalition'. Long-term, Starmer bashing them is a good move, but in the short-term it might well lead to Corbynites switching to the Greens. When you also factor in Partygate being out of news because of Ukraine, as well as 'rally around the government during a time of crisis' effect, that Labour's lead is a bit down probably isn't that surprising.
It happens every time, and is stupid politics. It sounds like Mandelson is back again with the advice,; it got no coverage whatsoever in it outlets like the Mail, where it might have been effective, and plenty in the Guardian.
Starmer has to be very careful he doesn''t go back to some of the theatrical and publicised conflicts with the left of last year, when his trend was generally downwards, otherwise it could start to eat further into his lead and momentum ( no pun intended).
Its a very difficult line to first map and then walk.
On one hand you have mainstream voters who tend to be pro-our boys / patriotism. On the other hand you have idealised anti-war people who tend to be younger or embittered middle class older people.
You can't balance off both at a time like this. When political idiots like Diane Abbott is going onto zoom meetings saying NATO is the aggressor I don't think Starmer and his team have much choice other than to stamp that approach down and hard.
I think this was more retrospective, though, trying to distance himself from the Corbyn years with a very pointed statement of difference, rather than by implication, or general political tone. Every time he's done that so far, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
He needs to be a lot clearer - "Jeremy holds a long-standing position with the Stop the War coalition and whilst I respect his commitment I do not share their worldview. It is simply wrong to automatically side with Russia or China or whoever is a threat to our interests."
That kind of thing. The embittered middle class activists will trot off to one of the myriad "left unity" splinter cells if they haven't already. The young will flirt with the Greens but when push comes to shove and they're faced with 5 more years of the Tories they will swing late to Labour as they did in 2017.
I don' t really agree here. I think this will just result in the "splits" headlines that the press so love, and then the general trend away from Labour of last year up to and including the party conference season ; until Paterson, sleaze and then Partygate, where his due-process, prosecutorial stance has brought him support from both wings of the party.
I can understand your position, but I am looking at the apparent hard shift in the polls and looking at what has changed in the news to drive it. If not Ukraine then what?
I’m certainly biased but trying to set that aside, afaics Lab leads are almost entirely due to how salient is the awfulness of BJ and the Tories; that goes on the backburner and the Lab lead goes down.
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
It's not just Starmer. It's all the rest of his rabble. I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
Interesting discussion (who is the trot by the way, Prole?). There's a danger that Labour gets the worst of both worlds by alienating the left by the very explicit distancing while failing to convince centrists because we've not yet expelled (enter leftie hate figure of their choice). A lot of former Conservative voters are so used to seeing Labour as wild-eyed loonies that it doesn't take much to deter them from switching, even when the entire leadership are centrist.
Strikes me as Boris just repeating NATOs principle - I.e anyone can choose to join. Why Macron is trying to peg back from that is odd, considering the EU is based on similarly tightly defined principles and parameters
I think one way Macron may try to square that circle is a private commitment that France will veto Ukranian membership of NATO.
Truss seems to inspire some pretty misogynistic views in a few of our posters .
Is criticising a woman misogyny?
That depends on how the criticism is made.
The implication of the post seems to be that Truss is useless and shouldn't be in charge of anything important. Exactly the same post could have been made about a man, and there's nothing gendered about the way it was said.
It doesn't even require much imagination, since very similar comments were made about her predecessor, Dominic Raab.
Truss seems to inspire some pretty misogynistic views in a few of our posters .
But its ok, as its about a Conservative...
Yes, it must be.
I, myself, have been mocking her photo opps linking to pictures from Twitter of her appearing on planets from Dr Who. But much of the criticism is misogynistic. Especially yesterday. Words used about her that would not be made about men.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Got a link?
Evidence of Trans-rights supporters being expelled from a political party?
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Thanks for mansplaining it.
What extreme minority views are you referring to on the GC side. If they are minority, then by nature they are not held by the majority of GC feminists.
Truss seems to inspire some pretty misogynistic views in a few of our posters .
Is criticising a woman misogyny?
That depends on how the criticism is made.
The implication of the post seems to be that Truss is useless and shouldn't be in charge of anything important. Exactly the same post could have been made about a man, and there's nothing gendered about the way it was said.
Though the misandry directed against that poor lad Gavin Williamson was dreadful.
I am not sure it has, but it does seem that the polls are narrowing, Starmer has stunned many remainers by ruling out rejoining the EU which begs the question who are they to vote for now, and Boris has just given a wide ranging interview from Scotland to the media and he really does not look like he is ready to say goodbye
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
If Remainers are 'stunned' then they haven't been listening: Starmer made it clear he saw no case for rejoining when he took over the leadership,
He has made it certain today and that means in practical terms a change in government will not see an attempt to rejoin and that will be a positive for Starmer in some areas but a big no no in other
While we accept difference in policy positions to the current leadership of our party, we are especially concerned in this instance to see Keir Starmer pushing not only for further engagement with NATO, but celebrating it while attacking Stop The War and other pro-peace activists"
An exchange official said only about 25% of euro clearing at LCH is between EU counterparties, meaning coming under Brussels' regulatory purview.
Oh good. We are only losing a quarter of a vast sum.
I was worried there for a minute ....
I thought you'd be disappointed we weren't losing 100%.....
I do not really give a d*mn any longer. "We" voted to be poorer, or some such. I lost. I am sucking it up...
In that case why do you keep gleefully posting things that you think are bad news for the UK (but often aren't)?
Because I am a bad person. Why else?
Not a bad person, just a bad loser.
Possibly. One of the things about being a "loser" in any political argument is the opportunity to see that one was generally right with the passage of time. I have largely "got over" Brexit, and while I "respect (if that is not too strong a word) the result, I still get a bit of amusement (though no pleasure) in noticing that it has been one massive balls up as many of us predicted, with virtually no upside whatsoever. I particularly get amusement from the idea of Jacob Rees Mogg desperately looking for those "opportunities" that don't really exist.
The difference is you are not jumping gleefully on any supposed bit of adverse news to do down the country. That is why you are not a bad loser. Every debate has winners and losers and it is how both the winners and the losers behave after the result that defines them far more than which side they were actually on. You want what is best for the country and just differ on how best to get there. As I read it, if Britain outside of the EU is successful that is more important to you than right or wrong over the question of leaving.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
People get very exercised about this in particular because, as just about everyone including our blessed MPs understands, "Britain outside the EU" is suffering economically.
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Simply not true. In the biggest ever survey, on this issue, the largest number of Leave voters cited Sovereignty as the main reason for their vote
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
We were always sovereign but there were certain things we couldn't do because we had agreed to be part of a bigger grouping. I am not about to get into a discussion about peoples' perception vs reality of our sovereignty but I would guess that people thought the EU did more and we could do less than was the case.
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
I see you are still spreading the same old myths Topping.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
R4 Russian spokesman* bringing up Crimean war and civil war as evidence “the west invades Russia”. Shouldn’t have been allowed to get away with WWII reference without challenge….
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
Couple of private jets fleeing the Ukraine, over the border, as we chat
Course it could be coincidence
There’s a lot of small planes, private jets and even one of those massive Antonov transport planes, all heading West out of Kiev at the moment. People and expensive machines all getting out while they still can.
Summary of the CAS press conference on the Valieva case, and my understanding of the current situation, as afaict the written judgment is not published yet:
- Doping rules require both a higher degree of proof for doping and much lighter sanctions for 'protected' participants, including U16s. - Provisional bans are mandatory, but no mention is made of U16s and provisional bans. - The delay in the result is a potential irregularity and relevant to the outcome. - The decision is essentially that there is a real likelihood of a provisional Olympic ban being a worse punishment than any timely final sanctioned punishment would have been (cf. being held longer on remand than the tariff for the crime you are accused of) - The chance of 'irreparable harm', seems to relate to the simple fact of non-participation being irreversible and the possibility of that being disproportionate to the eventual punishment, rather than any psychological or emotional assessment. - They rejected an appeal from Valieva's team that they weren't competent to judge in an adult hearing. - The likelihood of medals being stripped if the ultimate ruling dictates that has not been removed.
Every which way it is a mess, I understand the reasoning, but it sounds like the rules are lacking and the thorniness has not gone away. I honestly thought sporting integrity - that her whole training regime to get to this point is under question - would see her stopped from competing, irrespective of age.
Unless the overall punishments given out in this case, including to the entourage, balance out any reduced punishment on the young athlete herself, to be at the very minimum as heavy overall, you risk a harmful situation where junior athletes become fair game - like sending your little brother out to do your county lines deliveries.
Oh marvellous, tropes about trans people from Mumsnet aka Prosecco Stormfront.
Also, tropes about feminists, from The Green Party motion:
The Green Party accepts that the “Gender Critical” movements in most UK political parties have been infiltrated by hard-line extremists, who advocate for the wholesale removal of virtually all trans rights as currently enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, and routinely share platforms with those who advocate for extremist positions such as the mass sterilization of trans people. These extremists have also been linked with attacks on women’s abortion rights, misinformation designed to provoke hatred towards trans people, and have benefitted from funding from the far-right.
That is exactly what the GC side do too - seek to associate support for reforming the GRA (which is a respectable and rational position) with the most extreme minority views of some of those who also support it.
Thanks for mansplaining it.
Thanks for imposing identity stereotypes on the identypsplaining.
I must say that if I were a European in Russia right now I'd be looking to leave. If it all kicks off in Ukraine I wouldn't want to risk being treated as one of Putin's hostages.
Ryanair are about the only western European airline still flying.
That might be because Ryanair's airport for Ukraine is nowhere near Ukraine.
Southend, probably.
I did once have the pleasure of flying Ryannair to 'Vienna Bratislava' airport, I think it was sold as. Perhaps the only Ryanair airport actually in a different country to the one it ostensibly served?
(I was actually going to Bratislava, travelling from there to Cluj in Romania for wedding, via Budapest, so worked fine for me, but I distinctly remember the Vienna branding)
Summary of the CAS press conference on the Valieva case, and my understanding of the current situation, as afaict the written judgment is not published yet:
- Doping rules require both a higher degree of proof for doping and much lighter sanctions for 'protected' participants, including U16s. - Provisional bans are mandatory, but no mention is made of U16s and provisional bans. - The delay in the result is a potential irregularity and relevant to the outcome. - The decision is essentially that there is a real likelihood of a provisional Olympic ban being a worse punishment than any timely final sanctioned punishment would have been (cf. being held longer on remand than the tariff for the crime you are accused of) - The chance of 'irreparable harm', seems to relate to the simple fact of non-participation being irreversible and the possibility of that being disproportionate to the eventual punishment, rather than any psychological or emotional assessment. - They rejected an appeal from Valieva's team that they weren't competent to judge in an adult hearing. - The likelihood of medals being stripped if the ultimate ruling dictates that has not been removed.
Every which way it is a mess, I understand the reasoning, but it sounds like the rules are lacking and the thorniness has not gone away. I honestly thought sporting integrity - that her whole training regime to get to this point is under question - would see her stopped from competing, irrespective of age.
Unless the overall punishments given out in this case, including to the entourage, balance out any reduced punishment on the young athlete herself, to be at the very minimum as heavy overall, you risk a harmful situation where junior athletes become fair game - like sending your little brother out to do your county lines deliveries.
My dad just said that if this is how under 18s are going to be treated, the Olympics should not allow under 18s to compete at all.
Boris slapping down Macron on Ukraine's "right to join NATO". Manny went off on his own, negotiated away the kitchen sink and now everyone's fucked. Well done to him.
Well, he's not wrong. Ukraine aren't going to be joining NATO as they have an ongoing territorial dispute and would contribute nothing except aggravation.
I don't fully understand this 'joining NATO' business. AIUI, if Ukraine was in NATO the US would have to fight if Russia invaded. But clearly, as we see, the US isn't up for fighting Russia in the event Russia invades. They just want to do sanctions and supply. Ergo surely it's not just Russia that doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, the US doesn't either. So making a big deal of this aspect, for it to be some sort of deal maker or breaker, is not really scanning for me.
Comments
No harm to the bloke but Starmer isn’t exactly an inspirer, he’s just not Johnson. It’s like Lab 1992-97 was lead by Michael Meacher rather than Smith and Blair (an inexact comparison but you know what I mean).
I have far more respect for the consistency of HYUFD than the affluent elitist 'centrists' on this site who don't care about policies and think politics is one big decorum game.
Speaking of loop holes, does anyone know the state of play with regards to Downing Street being exempt from COVID regulations by virtue of belonging to the Crown? My understanding was that a Minister in the Lords specifically denied that this was the case, but my understanding is that what the Minister said was irrelevant. If the Government/PM/Whoever decide to fight a potential FPN, even if they don't rely on the defence in court, could a judge find them not guilty on those grounds?
Speculating massively, could this be why the PM's defence are allegedly focussing on the nature of Downing Street being a hybrid work/home area, to draw attention to the legal status of the property without having to explicitly make what would be a politically damaging defence?
Am genuinely curious now. You say I have "a deranged hatred of anyone remotely on the left" in response to me pointing out that Johnson is an immoral crook and that even previous Tory PMs are denouncing him. How does that work?
1 Met investigation has a long way to go and his patrons he is on the hook for a five-figure fine
2 Met investigations into Bribery relating to flatgate
3 Whatever exciting new instalment Cummings brings us
4 Tory decimation at the locals
5 Truss accidentally declares war on Belarus having got confused again
https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1493198551429660680?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
What I can see as a fair defence for Johnson, is that he lives there, so he can’t be guilty of *attending* a party there, although he may be guilty of the more serious offence of *organising* a party.
So long as no-one who wasn’t either working or living there was in attendance, and there weren’t emails or messages referencing parties, the PM is personally in the clear. The most of the covid rules concerned visitors, meaning people who are not living or working with you.
Now, there have been references made to Mrs Johnson organising a party in the flat, and to the staff having a party when the Johnsons were at Chequers, but those are not necessarily things that can be pinned on the PM himself.
Sadly for some posters that is not the case. Being right is more important than what the actual effect is on their country.
They are the bad losers - and in some cases the bad winners.
On second thoughts.......
I am one of the posters who posts stuff showing how damaged we are as a nation. But its out of mourning not out of glee. And the real stupidity is that none of the stupid we have done was driven by us leaving the EU.
Its choices we have made having decided to leave which are stupid - we could be and should be - prospering as a former EU member.
Brazil is bloody humongous. Greenland is vastly exaggerated
China is bigger than the whole of Europe, basically. Bolivia is almost as big as Scandinavia
www.thetruesize.com
It is also good that HMG and the Scottish government have agreed for 2 Scottish Freeports, despite fierce opposition from the Greens, the SNP's partners in government
Lots of complaints that workers cannot have a smoke now apparently
Boris in a high-vis yellow during visit to Scotland, but sadly hasn't gone the full Osborne and put on a hard hat https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/1493197740767125509/photo/1
41% prefered a Con gov run by Cameron
36% prefered a Lab gov run by Miliband
In our most recent poll (which also has lab 3 points ahead):
34% prefered a Con gov run by Johnson
43% prefered a Lab gov run by Starmer
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1493201353916796930
Perhaps the public simply don't want a majority Government of any kind but would prefer Starmer as PM over Johnson
As per my post last week the only legitimate reason for wanting the UK to leave the EU is one of sovereignty which, while absolute, and something we always were, was also compromised by our membership of the EU. And that is a wholly understandable view, if a huge minority one.
That any economic or other perhaps more tangible benefit has accrued to the UK outside the EU is fanciful. That is why people who care about their country continue to be upset. We believe that the UK and its population has suffered.
Merkel's reputation is going up in smoke.
Cressida Dick resignation: Metropolitan Police Federation says it has 'no faith' in London Mayor Sadiq Khan
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1493202967314501639?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
Some of those Remainers would find any small thing to declare Brexit a failure, even if it was objectively a success overall.
It's the difficulty of reconciling these two different identities that makes the arguments so bitter. It's why antifrank's point about loser's consent was perceptive.
I find the current Labour Party a bit like the scene from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the Witch takes Alsan to be executed, and all the gouls, hags and werewolves etc troop along after her...a fairly presentable leader, in front of the massed ranks of horrors.
At the end of the day, much as I dislike Johnson, I'm simply not going to vote for the unreconsitiuted trot who is the Labour candidate in my marginal constituency.
On the day of the referendum Lord Ashcroft's polling team questioned 12,369 people who had completed voting.[3] This poll produced data that showed that 'Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the European Union was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". ("in the UK." meaning: "by the UK." logically implying: "on behalf of 66 million UK citizens not 508 million EU residents.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit#:~:text=Factors including sovereignty, immigration, the,of leaving the European Union.
In other surveys immigration comes out just ahead of sovereignty, but it is very close
Interestingly, you are a classic example of THIS:
"When asked to rank the reasons why their counterparts voted the way they did, Leave voters characterise Remain voters more accurately than Remain voters characterise Leave voters. In particular, Remain voters underestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to the EU having no role in UK law-making."
http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153
The Secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation
Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee
Stating that the Government
Had forfeited the confidence of the Police
And could only win it back
By increased gundecking of enquiries. Would it not in that case be simpler
for the Police
To dissolve the Government
And elect another?
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/160856/clear-increase-in-costs-paperwork-and-border-delays-for-uk-business-since-brexit-not-helped-by-repeated-delays-to-new-import-regime/
1) Labour are still ahead, which is quite a shift from 2019
2) Labour has a lot of voters to squeeze as well as the Tories (e.g. those they have lost to the greens)
3) Johnson's approval rating is still really bad
We are in a very different situation to the 2010-2015 parliment.
1) Starmer is more popular than Miliband (and seen as more competent!)
2) Johnson is a lot less popular than Cameron
3) The Tories are losing their reputation for economic competence
However...
1) There are still doubts about whether Starmer is strong enough for the top job
2) Labour is still seen as the party of borrowing
3) People still don't know much about what Labour / Starmer stand for and what their vision for Britain is
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1493198865494908933?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
Downing Street says Liz Truss will chair a COBR meeting on Ukraine later today https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1493207115405611011/photo/1
Oh yes of course there was also immigration. I try to avoid pointing that out because Leavers get very defensive about it and compete to tell me how they welcome ever more immigrants.
In his autobiograpy Tony Blair referred to the Police Federation as the most powerful Union in the country. That explains a great deal.
Southend, probably.
Interesting that the drone isn't going over Donetsk - yet.
If the transponders are on, then there’s not (yet) much to worry about, they’re just letting Putin know they’re there…
.
That one?
*I'm sure Dura Ace will deplore this but it seemed such a cracker of a description.
Any word on when Rubelstream 1 is going to be shut down and the £2m and counting of dirty Russian money taken by the Tories will be returned?
Practical politics for the period 2024-9 has always been a TCA with some actual co-operation. Enough to stop an unbridgeable breach. And then EEA-alike by about 2034, and then a recognition that, if you are following the rules, proper input into their making is a good idea...
The current trajectory isn't getting public backing. So why will it stick?
It's not just Starmer. Steve Reed, the shadow Justice Secretary says today in LabourList, "Labour under the last leadership cared more about the criminals than about their victims, but those days are well and truly over...". Now this alienates me in the same way that I wouldn't buy something from Ratner if he told me that he'd fooled me with crap but he now had the genuine article for me. I simply don't accept the premise that we cared more about criminals than victims, but is he thereby convincing e.g. The Prole? It seems not, as The Prole still thinks he's rabble.
All that said, I don't think we've seen an "apparent hard shift" in the polls. We've seen one poll with a big shift. The Opinium poll doesn't show a shift at all (10-point lead on comparable methodology).
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/train-drivers-union-aslef-threatens-26207897
Erdington will tell us more, with Nellist standing for Continuity Corbyn.
Think 'backs turned' when he attends parades etc.
"VIDEO: 🇰🇵 North Koreans march, swim for former leader Kim Jong Il's birthday
North Korea has held a series of performances including a synchronised swimming show as part of celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of the birth of late leader Kim Jong Il on February 16"
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1493208407209349122?s=20&t=ZDgNGa8XuiRhFIkwMT299Q
Turns out you can't run a script, host a teams meeting and track a USAF Drone at the same time. Nearly burnt a hole in my desk.
"Young Labour
@YoungLabourUK
While we accept difference in policy positions to the current leadership of our party, we are especially concerned in this instance to see Keir Starmer pushing not only for further engagement with NATO, but celebrating it while attacking Stop The War and other pro-peace activists"
See the thread
https://twitter.com/YoungLabourUK/status/1493209456737501188?s=20&t=ZDgNGa8XuiRhFIkwMT299Q
Exactly the same post could have been made about a man, and there's nothing gendered about the way it was said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/14/duchess-cornwall-tests-positive-covid/
HMQ is “being monitored closely”.
Course it could be coincidence
I, myself, have been mocking her photo opps linking to pictures from Twitter of her appearing on planets from Dr Who. But much of the criticism is misogynistic. Especially yesterday. Words used about her that would not be made about men.
Evidence of Trans-rights supporters being expelled from a political party?
What extreme minority views are you referring to on the GC side. If they are minority, then by nature they are not held by the majority of GC feminists.
Once an external government has the power to make new laws over which you have no control and which you cannot veto then you are no longer sovereign. There is no other organisation we are a member of which can do this to us. Now that might be acceptable to you which is your choice but it doesn't change the basic fact that it removes sovereignty - something you apparently don't care much about.
* Duma politician and Molotov’s grandson.
- Doping rules require both a higher degree of proof for doping and much lighter sanctions for 'protected' participants, including U16s.
- Provisional bans are mandatory, but no mention is made of U16s and provisional bans.
- The delay in the result is a potential irregularity and relevant to the outcome.
- The decision is essentially that there is a real likelihood of a provisional Olympic ban being a worse punishment than any timely final sanctioned punishment would have been (cf. being held longer on remand than the tariff for the crime you are accused of)
- The chance of 'irreparable harm', seems to relate to the simple fact of non-participation being irreversible and the possibility of that being disproportionate to the eventual punishment, rather than any psychological or emotional assessment.
- They rejected an appeal from Valieva's team that they weren't competent to judge in an adult hearing.
- The likelihood of medals being stripped if the ultimate ruling dictates that has not been removed.
Every which way it is a mess, I understand the reasoning, but it sounds like the rules are lacking and the thorniness has not gone away. I honestly thought sporting integrity - that her whole training regime to get to this point is under question - would see her stopped from competing, irrespective of age.
Unless the overall punishments given out in this case, including to the entourage, balance out any reduced punishment on the young athlete herself, to be at the very minimum as heavy overall, you risk a harmful situation where junior athletes become fair game - like sending your little brother out to do your county lines deliveries.
(I was actually going to Bratislava, travelling from there to Cluj in Romania for wedding, via Budapest, so worked fine for me, but I distinctly remember the Vienna branding)
Rinat Akhmetov's private jet outbound from Kyiv.
P4-SCM #484101 is a Dassault Falcon 7X
The SCM in the registration is the same as System Capital Management (SCM) Holdings, Akhmetov's business he has full control over
https://twitter.com/vcdgf555/status/1492981193641394178?s=20