They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Londoners moaning about Council Tax really sticks in the craw tbh.
What is on the safe list for us to moan about without triggering you?
Neil Irwin @Neil_Irwin We're currently living in the brief moment between when Finance/Econ Twitter has realized that the new Covid lockdowns in Shenzhen are going to have hugely bad consequences for US inflation, but that has not yet become a widely-reported conventional wisdom.
Shenzhen getting locked down is hardly getting a mention. Its a massive story.
Indeed, it’s going to have a major impact on supply chains for months. The return of the chip shortages, alongside shortages of all manner of manufactured stuff for the rest of this year.
No wonder people go nuts spending too much time on twitter....Today Wuuuuselly Brand is no longer a hero of the masses speaking truth to power, and Carole Conspiracy is back to being a heroine.
Whatever happened to Wussell Bwand?
Did he go the same way as the Likely Lads? Or is he still holed up in his tax-dodging cottage in the You-SA ?
CC is still flying the flag for fair, objective reporting, surely? Albeit with a lot of rips and patches.
Brand managed to carve out a niche as podcaster with combination of some self-help guru mixed with Joe Rogan type I'll talk to anybody. Which if wasn't weird enough (but the tw@tterati seemed to like it, as he is always a big leftie), but recently has gone anti-COVID mandates, pumping up Canadian freedom convey and now Russian invasion of Ukraine, it ain't all Putin fault. Seems the last bit is the final straw for the tw@tterati.
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Can you explain why they'd hold Wandsworth?
From what I know of actually living in Wandsworth, people are fed up with the Tories and want to give them a kicking.
But then I said people actually liked Khan and I was told that was nonsense before he was re-elected
My understanding is that Wandsworth is a good Council which applies reasonable control over the Council Tax. But we shall see.
Wandsworth's Conservative group is currently racked with infighting. I expect Labour to gain this council.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
Not in the UK there isn't. No one has had that conversation of matching ambition to resources. So we continue to think we can "punch above our weight" which, as has been shown in recent campaigns, is not the most successful strategy.
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Londoners moaning about Council Tax really sticks in the craw tbh.
I'm only raising concerns over the GLA levy, perfectly happy with the Council Tax set by my own borough.
Well TfL finances have obvs been slaughtered by all the WFH
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
Not in the UK there isn't. No one has had that conversation of matching ambition to resources. So we continue to think we can "punch above our weight" which, as has been shown in recent campaigns, is not the most successful strategy.
"Punching above our weight" is a synonym for "out of our depth".
PODUPWAS. What next for the scarlet phizogged creationists?
What do they actually want to happen? Or are they too angry to even know?
It's a good question.
Harland & Wolff with full order books and a closed shop to Fenians, restored gerrymandering to ensure continuing Prod hegemony and the Duke of Cambridge as governor regent of the province might do it.
Can we have an UNS extrapolation on this poll please?
In London as I said it would see Labour win Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster in May.
However London is already the safest region of the UK and was even in 2019 and the latest Yougov has Labour 29% ahead in London but only 6% ahead across the UK.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
Not in the UK there isn't. No one has had that conversation of matching ambition to resources. So we continue to think we can "punch above our weight" which, as has been shown in recent campaigns, is not the most successful strategy.
"Punching above our weight" is a synonym for "out of our depth".
Yes. The overdue debate, following what might be happening to Russia (not saying they’ll lose but they have clearly been given a bloody nose) is whether that’s exactly what would happen to us if ever we had to act outside of the protective US skirt tails, and whether we care about that as a nation or we just want to play at defence now and again as the US fig leaf.
Bannon and Galloway?! Truly two cheeks of the same arse.
Left-wing Twitter’s full of this stuff. Carol Cadwalladr’s churning it out by the ton.
No doubt it’ll be poo-poohed but what if there’s some truth here? I’m inclined to think Johnson’s not a traitor, surely he hasn’t deliberately betrayed the UK. But it looks like he’s shown terrible judgement in his choice of friends, drinking buddies and acquaintances, a willingness to overlook where the money might be coming from and what these people’s agendas might be.
Maybe chutzpah and a total lack of shame or sense of personal responsibility will get him through this like it seems to be doing with partygate. But surely the point will come when the wider Tory party, it’s MPs and voters, even for them the shadiness will become too uncomfortable to ignore?
Or, cos Johnson is still seen to be a winner and he rammed through a nice, veiny, rock hard Brexit, will it all be conveniently disregarded? Will the allegations be dismissed as ‘unhelpful’? Perhaps they’re ‘premature’?
The Tories under Johnson are the mirror image of Labour under Corbyn. The fucking nutters are in charge, the ideological grassroots fucking love it while everyone else looks on in horror.
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Londoners moaning about Council Tax really sticks in the craw tbh.
I'm only raising concerns over the GLA levy, perfectly happy with the Council Tax set by my own borough.
Well TfL finances have obvs been slaughtered by all the WFH
And the delay in the Elizabeth line actually opening up...
PODUPWAS. What next for the scarlet phizogged creationists?
What do they actually want to happen? Or are they too angry to even know?
It's a good question.
Harland & Wolff with full order books and a closed shop to Fenians, restored gerrymandering to ensure continuing Prod hegemony and the Duke of Cambridge as governor regent of the province might do it.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Londoners moaning about Council Tax really sticks in the craw tbh.
I'm only raising concerns over the GLA levy, perfectly happy with the Council Tax set by my own borough.
Well TfL finances have obvs been slaughtered by all the WFH
Can Mayor Sadiq put a supplementary charge on all properties which benefit in value from the investment TFL put in to the latest tube line?
A lot of people have been arguing for it for a long time.
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Can you explain why they'd hold Wandsworth?
From what I know of actually living in Wandsworth, people are fed up with the Tories and want to give them a kicking.
But then I said people actually liked Khan and I was told that was nonsense before he was re-elected
My understanding is that Wandsworth is a good Council which applies reasonable control over the Council Tax. But we shall see.
Wandsworth's Conservative group is currently racked with infighting. I expect Labour to gain this council.
In 2018, Labour got more votes across the borough than the Conservatives- though that doesn't help if they're in the wrong places, natch.
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
A land, sea and air campaign against Scotland might eat into the budget, that said.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
Not in the UK there isn't. No one has had that conversation of matching ambition to resources. So we continue to think we can "punch above our weight" which, as has been shown in recent campaigns, is not the most successful strategy.
I yield to your expertise in the boxing, but I've always assumed that punching above their weight was applied to a boxer on a fight by fight basis rather than as a long term strategy for career success.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
And beyond that, there's the Hannanesque "leading the Anglosphere" stuff. Which tends to exclude America, because... well, they're bigger than us.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
A land, sea and air campaign against Scotland might eat into the budget, that said.
One Covenanter tank doesn't cost *that* much to run. Particularly since it will spend nearly all it's time broken down.
All the maps I've seen have it firmly in Ukranian hands (Even more so than Kyiv), but apparently it has a naval blockade ?
Remarkably, the city appears pretty much untouched. Perhaps the Russians see it as strategic to keep the port as undamaged as possible?
There was a Russian naval fleet in the area last week, but they did a u-turn and headed back to Crimea, for reasons unknown but reported by the Ukranians as a mutiny. They are said to be gathering again over this weekend though, perhaps coming back for another go at Odessa shortly.
I doubt if the Conservatives will poll under 30% across London.
29 % last time, and that was after hoovering up pretty much all the UKIP vote from 2014; UKIP got just under 1 %.
And London and the Conservatives have moved further apart since then...
I can see the Tories doing as badly as 25% in London in May as they only polled 26.4% in 2018 and 28.8% in 2018. Although the Tories got very lucky with vote distribution in 2018. They also did extremely well in Hillingdon.
Although the largest beneficiaries could be the LDs mainly in SW London. I think Labour will be hard pushed to gain seats net in London as they could lose a few to the LDs in Merton and some seats to the Greens in some inner London boroughs even if they narrowly gain control of Wandsworth and Barnet councils.
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
You don’t win a war with top trumps defence budgets.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Since Spain would never invade and the garrison could defend the FI, I take it from this that you only ever want to act with the US. Fine, though that isn’t your Government’s policy. If you want that we should follow the Israeli model and buy the last 10-20% of every US production run, and use them for maintenance.
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
I'm afraid I really do think a lot of the back-slapping about how well we are doing is delusional borne of a need not to feel as powerless about what Putin is doing as we are.
The fact is, we stood by and let him invade and pulverise an entire nation. Slowly and inexorably that is what he is doing. Biden and NATO refused to pitch in because they were too scared of Putin's nuclear threats. Perhaps justifiably, but we've let him get away with it.
We all want this to be another Afghanistan. I fear we are deluding ourselves.
When you say "we", I don't think you're including yourself.
So perhaps you should be a little more precise in your language and say "you".
It would be a little more honest, no?
'We' meaning the west, not pb.com per se.
I think we in the west have been trying to convince ourselves that we're doing as much as we possibly can (we aren't), that we're united (we aren't) and that there's nothing further we can do without risking nuclear war (not true).
The reality is that we are ignoring Zelensky's pleas for a No Fly Zone and we're letting an entire country get pulverised.
You started here with some views on Covid cases and hospitalisations in Israel which turned out not to be - how to put this - entirely accurate. Then moved on to a story about BA pilots, which turned out to be... ah yes... not entirely accurate.
And now you're onto "oh yes, I'm on your side, one of *you*, and I know it's hard to accept, but it would be better for all of us if the Ukrainians just accepted the inevitable and laid down their arms... after all, what chance do they stand?"
It is a little tricky to take you seriously, and for that I apologise.
At least she’s a better class of Russian provocateur. PB should feel flattered
The faux reasonableness is very, very well done though.
I think, and I do mean this, you should take a look at yourself if you are 'really' going down that route because it's a very, very, dark place to go.
If you start to think that anyone with whom you disagree displays the signs of being something other than sincere, a phantasm, a spectre, who is merely 'faux' reasonable then you are disappearing into a rabbit hole void the end result of which is a dystopian nightmare of narcissistic individualism.
I don't agree with everything you post but I don't stoop to question your sincerity.
It's a strange phenomenon on PB, noted also by @Dura_Ace and @YBarddCwsc yesterday. Normally very thoughtful, enquiring minds have fallen into line over a preferred stance on Russia/Ukraine. Any deviation from that stance is met with disproportionate hostility.
Perhaps it stems from a sense of frustration at our powerlessness. Change your profile picture to the Ukrainian flag and shout down those who don't agree with the chosen line on Ukraine (Russia doing dreadfully, imminent collapse of their war effort, dissent maybe even revolution at home, etc).
It really is quite strange.
It's OK to have a dissenting opinion.
But it's also a little suspicious when you have a dissenting opinion, have a record of spreading falsehoods (about BA pilots and vaccines, for example), and have an IP address that's listed in the blacklists.
Absolutely and it's your site so them's the rules. Perhaps it is a mark of the sophistication of spammers that @Heathener's posts seem to me to be genuine and I could point to other posters who are equally contentious for many on PB, not to say equally provocative.
P Johnson and d-d were laughably obvious, but Heathener less so.
I thought she was stupid, but harmless. Guess she's gone now.
Thing is, we are, ahem, all grown up able to think for ourselves types on here. If they are super crass like @PJohnson was with lots of "mate"s and very bad at the spamming thing then fair enough - they clog up the site and take up bandwidth.
But from what I have read of @Heathener's posts (until recently one a day in the morning saying that's it I'm off) they have an opinion. I hadn't recalled the BA pilots or vaccines ones but even if it is the most egregious perceived rubbish then what harm does it do to respond to the points raised.
What's the difference between engaging with someone who genuinely believes, for example and I'm not saying this is her position, that Putin is entirely justified in his current actions, and engaging with a bot who says the same thing. It is the issue that is of interest. Somewhere there is someone who supports Putin - there are reports that say much of the Russian population, for example - so why not ignore the IP address and just discuss the issue.
When @Heathener arrived it was a blaze of glory about autumn lockdowns and the vaccines failing, which was challenged in a robust way, as it was shite. She/he/it objected to the unwelcoming atmosphere (which kind of indicates that they hadn't been a lurker).
Up to now I've regarded them as a deluded, rude, lesbian, who talked shit. Now perhaps she/he/it has been outed as something else entirely.
Blimey. "deluded, rude, lesbian."
Where the fuck did you get that from. And this from a site that welcomes women.
And we do welcome women. Cyclefree, bev and moonrabbit in particular provide good posts and rarely if ever attack other posters.
You don’t want to get on the wrong side of @Cyclefree!
I'm afraid I really do think a lot of the back-slapping about how well we are doing is delusional borne of a need not to feel as powerless about what Putin is doing as we are.
The fact is, we stood by and let him invade and pulverise an entire nation. Slowly and inexorably that is what he is doing. Biden and NATO refused to pitch in because they were too scared of Putin's nuclear threats. Perhaps justifiably, but we've let him get away with it.
We all want this to be another Afghanistan. I fear we are deluding ourselves.
When you say "we", I don't think you're including yourself.
So perhaps you should be a little more precise in your language and say "you".
It would be a little more honest, no?
'We' meaning the west, not pb.com per se.
I think we in the west have been trying to convince ourselves that we're doing as much as we possibly can (we aren't), that we're united (we aren't) and that there's nothing further we can do without risking nuclear war (not true).
The reality is that we are ignoring Zelensky's pleas for a No Fly Zone and we're letting an entire country get pulverised.
You started here with some views on Covid cases and hospitalisations in Israel which turned out not to be - how to put this - entirely accurate. Then moved on to a story about BA pilots, which turned out to be... ah yes... not entirely accurate.
And now you're onto "oh yes, I'm on your side, one of *you*, and I know it's hard to accept, but it would be better for all of us if the Ukrainians just accepted the inevitable and laid down their arms... after all, what chance do they stand?"
It is a little tricky to take you seriously, and for that I apologise.
At least she’s a better class of Russian provocateur. PB should feel flattered
The faux reasonableness is very, very well done though.
I think, and I do mean this, you should take a look at yourself if you are 'really' going down that route because it's a very, very, dark place to go.
If you start to think that anyone with whom you disagree displays the signs of being something other than sincere, a phantasm, a spectre, who is merely 'faux' reasonable then you are disappearing into a rabbit hole void the end result of which is a dystopian nightmare of narcissistic individualism.
I don't agree with everything you post but I don't stoop to question your sincerity.
It's a strange phenomenon on PB, noted also by @Dura_Ace and @YBarddCwsc yesterday. Normally very thoughtful, enquiring minds have fallen into line over a preferred stance on Russia/Ukraine. Any deviation from that stance is met with disproportionate hostility.
Perhaps it stems from a sense of frustration at our powerlessness. Change your profile picture to the Ukrainian flag and shout down those who don't agree with the chosen line on Ukraine (Russia doing dreadfully, imminent collapse of their war effort, dissent maybe even revolution at home, etc).
It really is quite strange.
It's OK to have a dissenting opinion.
But it's also a little suspicious when you have a dissenting opinion, have a record of spreading falsehoods (about BA pilots and vaccines, for example), and have an IP address that's listed in the blacklists.
Absolutely and it's your site so them's the rules. Perhaps it is a mark of the sophistication of spammers that @Heathener's posts seem to me to be genuine and I could point to other posters who are equally contentious for many on PB, not to say equally provocative.
P Johnson and d-d were laughably obvious, but Heathener less so.
I thought she was stupid, but harmless. Guess she's gone now.
Thing is, we are, ahem, all grown up able to think for ourselves types on here. If they are super crass like @PJohnson was with lots of "mate"s and very bad at the spamming thing then fair enough - they clog up the site and take up bandwidth.
But from what I have read of @Heathener's posts (until recently one a day in the morning saying that's it I'm off) they have an opinion. I hadn't recalled the BA pilots or vaccines ones but even if it is the most egregious perceived rubbish then what harm does it do to respond to the points raised.
What's the difference between engaging with someone who genuinely believes, for example and I'm not saying this is her position, that Putin is entirely justified in his current actions, and engaging with a bot who says the same thing. It is the issue that is of interest. Somewhere there is someone who supports Putin - there are reports that say much of the Russian population, for example - so why not ignore the IP address and just discuss the issue.
When @Heathener arrived it was a blaze of glory about autumn lockdowns and the vaccines failing, which was challenged in a robust way, as it was shite. She/he/it objected to the unwelcoming atmosphere (which kind of indicates that they hadn't been a lurker).
Up to now I've regarded them as a deluded, rude, lesbian, who talked shit. Now perhaps she/he/it has been outed as something else entirely.
Blimey. "deluded, rude, lesbian."
Where the fuck did you get that from. And this from a site that welcomes women.
And we do welcome women. Cyclefree, bev and moonrabbit in particular provide good posts and rarely if ever attack other posters.
You don’t want to get on the wrong side of @Cyclefree!
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
You don’t win a war with top trumps defence budgets.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Because they're following the target (see also: foreign aid).
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
Lebedev is either a twat or was happy to play up to the friend of KGB monsters stuff. Likely both.
All the maps I've seen have it firmly in Ukranian hands (Even more so than Kyiv), but apparently it has a naval blockade ?
Remarkably, the city appears pretty much untouched. Perhaps the Russians see it as strategic to keep the port as undamaged as possible?
There was a Russian naval fleet in the area last week, but they did a u-turn and headed back to Crimea, for reasons unknown but reported by the Ukranians as a mutiny. They are said to be gathering again over this weekend though, perhaps coming back for another go at Odessa shortly.
It seems that the Russia's are facing a lot of resistance through a couple of towns which are the major routes to Odesa, so can't get very close with any sort of numbers.
Can we have an UNS extrapolation on this poll please?
Nonono, This is a poll with a (+) next to Labour. It is therefore an outlier, unreliable, and can be discounted.
In the event that it cannot be discounted for some reason, it will be indicative of votes piling up in safe seats, and can therefore be discounted.
In the event that it is demonstrated that these votes are distributed more evenly across the seats, then the Greens are being underestimated and will take 10% off Labour, especially in marginals.
And in any case you can't compare a poll with an actual vote.
All the maps I've seen have it firmly in Ukranian hands (Even more so than Kyiv), but apparently it has a naval blockade ?
Remarkably, the city appears pretty much untouched. Perhaps the Russians see it as strategic to keep the port as undamaged as possible?
There was a Russian naval fleet in the area last week, but they did a u-turn and headed back to Crimea, for reasons unknown but reported by the Ukranians as a mutiny. They are said to be gathering again over this weekend though, perhaps coming back for another go at Odessa shortly.
I think there was a plan for a naval landing, coupled with land invasion from Transdnistra and Mykolaiv, and it may still happen. Or maybe like Belarus invading is just a ruse to tie up Ukranian defence forces away from the front.
Some decent anti-ship missiles to Odesa might be a useful bit of equipment.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
You don’t win a war with top trumps defence budgets.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Since Spain would never invade and the garrison could defend the FI, I take it from this that you only ever want to act with the US. Fine, though that isn’t your Government’s policy. If you want that we should follow the Israeli model and buy the last 10-20% of every US production run, and use them for maintenance.
It is the government's polcy. We only ever act militarily with NATO, the UN or US, we only ever would act on our own to defend the few remaining British overseas territories that is it.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
LOL, usual crap , if it was bad it was "Scotland" that did it.
Bannon and Galloway?! Truly two cheeks of the same arse.
Left-wing Twitter’s full of this stuff. Carol Cadwalladr’s churning it out by the ton.
No doubt it’ll be poo-poohed but what if there’s some truth here? I’m inclined to think Johnson’s not a traitor, surely he hasn’t deliberately betrayed the UK. But it looks like he’s shown terrible judgement in his choice of friends, drinking buddies and acquaintances, a willingness to overlook where the money might be coming from and what these people’s agendas might be.
Maybe chutzpah and a total lack of shame or sense of personal responsibility will get him through this like it seems to be doing with partygate. But surely the point will come when the wider Tory party, it’s MPs and voters, even for them the shadiness will become too uncomfortable to ignore?
Or, cos Johnson is still seen to be a winner and he rammed through a nice, veiny, rock hard Brexit, will it all be conveniently disregarded? Will the allegations be dismissed as ‘unhelpful’? Perhaps they’re ‘premature’?
The Tories under Johnson are the mirror image of Labour under Corbyn. The fucking nutters are in charge, the ideological grassroots fucking love it while everyone else looks on in horror.
I'm very happy to regard Johnson as a traitor. I am absolutely certain that his patriotic allegiance is to Poshistan; mainly those parts of it which party with/are married to/get given business grants by him, lesser extent OEs and Oxford chaps and merchant bankers and so on, but Russian poshos over English plebs. The attitude is encapsulated by that creepy dictum of Forster's "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
Not in the UK there isn't. No one has had that conversation of matching ambition to resources. So we continue to think we can "punch above our weight" which, as has been shown in recent campaigns, is not the most successful strategy.
"Punching above our weight" is a synonym for "out of our depth".
Nope. It means we hit exceptionally hard for our size.
Rare error there, Foxy. Boxing evidently not your specialist subject.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
Are you stupid, they all voted with their feet, only one colony left and they are not being allowed to do the same. None have ever expressed a wish to be a colony again.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
Are you stupid, they all voted with their feet, only one colony left and they are not being allowed to do the same. None have ever expressed a wish to be a colony again.
Maybe you should also have voted with your feet, instead of, y'know, actual votes.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
Are you stupid, they all voted with their feet, only one colony left and they are not being allowed to do the same. None have ever expressed a wish to be a colony again.
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
To disturb further, it could plausibly not be post coital. Boris looks a bit startled
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
Strong Tom of Finland energy.
I've just gone off on a riff about a genre of homo-erotic Russian illustrative fiction by Evgeny of Siberia.
'As the commissar slowly undid his Sam Browne belt, the zek crouching before him looked longingly at his muscular thighs bulging beneath his NKVD issue breeches..'
I'd actually be quite surprised if some version of this didn't exist in the many mansioned world of porn.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
I think Kenyan and Jamaican waiters find it a useful way to extract tips from Blimpish types and their memsahibs.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
Has anyone in the former Empire being asked whether they would still prefer to be in the Empire?
I think Kenyan and Jamaican waiters find it a useful way to extract tips from Blimpish types and their memsahibs.
Can we have an UNS extrapolation on this poll please?
Nonono, This is a poll with a (+) next to Labour. It is therefore an outlier, unreliable, and can be discounted.
In the event that it cannot be discounted for some reason, it will be indicative of votes piling up in safe seats, and can therefore be discounted.
In the event that it is demonstrated that these votes are distributed more evenly across the seats, then the Greens are being underestimated and will take 10% off Labour, especially in marginals.
And in any case you can't compare a poll with an actual vote.
I think that sums it up?
This deltapoll poll is actually pretty similar to the last yougov poll of London in January:
Lab 55% Con 23% LD 9% Grn 7% Others 3%
Vote distribution in London will be very interesting this time, the Tories got extremely lucky in 2018 but we will see what happens this time.
I think the result in London in May compared directly to 2018 will be something like
We will see how that plays out in terms of seats particularly in places such as Wandsworth and if Labour does a much better job of expectation management than last time.
Gotta love those Kremlin spokespersons going on about the West 'pushing Russia' toward the storming of Ukrainian cities and having the gall to intend to blame Russia for any civilian deaths when that happens.
It really is the 'why do you make me hit you?' rant of someone abusing their spouse, translated to international relations.
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
Strong Tom of Finland energy.
I've just gone off on a riff about a genre of homo-erotic Russian illustrative fiction by Evgeny of Siberia.
'As the commissar slowly undid his Sam Browne belt, the zek crouching before him looked longingly at his muscular thighs bulging beneath his NKVD issue breeches..'
I'd actually be quite surprised if some version of this didn't exist in the many mansioned world of porn.
Bannon and Galloway?! Truly two cheeks of the same arse.
Left-wing Twitter’s full of this stuff. Carol Cadwalladr’s churning it out by the ton.
No doubt it’ll be poo-poohed but what if there’s some truth here? I’m inclined to think Johnson’s not a traitor, surely he hasn’t deliberately betrayed the UK. But it looks like he’s shown terrible judgement in his choice of friends, drinking buddies and acquaintances, a willingness to overlook where the money might be coming from and what these people’s agendas might be.
Maybe chutzpah and a total lack of shame or sense of personal responsibility will get him through this like it seems to be doing with partygate. But surely the point will come when the wider Tory party, it’s MPs and voters, even for them the shadiness will become too uncomfortable to ignore?
Or, cos Johnson is still seen to be a winner and he rammed through a nice, veiny, rock hard Brexit, will it all be conveniently disregarded? Will the allegations be dismissed as ‘unhelpful’? Perhaps they’re ‘premature’?
The Tories under Johnson are the mirror image of Labour under Corbyn. The fucking nutters are in charge, the ideological grassroots fucking love it while everyone else looks on in horror.
I'm very happy to regard Johnson as a traitor. I am absolutely certain that his patriotic allegiance is to Poshistan; mainly those parts of it which party with/are married to/get given business grants by him, lesser extent OEs and Oxford chaps and merchant bankers and so on, but Russian poshos over English plebs. The attitude is encapsulated by that creepy dictum of Forster's "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."
Big Dog is the funniest kind of traitor - the patsy who quite aggressively claims to be a patriot whilst being manipulated like crazy behind the scenes by his "friends" in the ex-KGB oligarch network.
He's so arrogant and so stupid that he probably thinks it is *he* doing the manipulating.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 9m Russia's National Guard chief Viktor Zolotov has said Russia's military operation in Ukraine is not going as quickly as the Kremlin wants, in the strongest public acknowledgment yet from Moscow that things aren’t going to plan.
@mfa_russia 💬#Zakharova: Attacks against their own nuclear facilities have become the signature of the current Ukrainian regime. The blame for this lies squarely with Kiev, the American masters of Vladimir Zelensky and US vassals in @NATO.
Someone in the Kremlin has been on the creative writing course.
Their money was obviously much better spent in writing the script about getting someone who was parroting Kremlin lines over the Crimea and Donbas in 2014 to be a future PM’s bestie and into the HoL. You couldn’t make it up!
Here’s a photo of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia with Boris in happier times.
Disturbing post coital vibe, only thing missing is the dog isn't smoking a cigarette
Strong Tom of Finland energy.
I've just gone off on a riff about a genre of homo-erotic Russian illustrative fiction by Evgeny of Siberia.
'As the commissar slowly undid his Sam Browne belt, the zek crouching before him looked longingly at his muscular thighs bulging beneath his NKVD issue breeches..'
I'd actually be quite surprised if some version of this didn't exist in the many mansioned world of porn.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 9m Russia's National Guard chief Viktor Zolotov has said Russia's military operation in Ukraine is not going as quickly as the Kremlin wants, in the strongest public acknowledgment yet from Moscow that things aren’t going to plan.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 9m Russia's National Guard chief Viktor Zolotov has said Russia's military operation in Ukraine is not going as quickly as the Kremlin wants, in the strongest public acknowledgment yet from Moscow that things aren’t going to plan.
He is now on a train to Siberia with one way ticket no doubt.
On manoeuvres? pissed off at the losses he has sustained because the army sent his guys in first?
"The National Guard/Rosgvardiya is separate from the Russian Armed Forces.[2] A law signed by President Vladimir Putin established the federal executive body in 2016. The National Guard has the stated mission of securing Russia's borders, taking charge of gun control, combating terrorism and organized crime, protecting public order and guarding important state facilities.[3]"
Can we have an UNS extrapolation on this poll please?
Nonono, This is a poll with a (+) next to Labour. It is therefore an outlier, unreliable, and can be discounted.
In the event that it cannot be discounted for some reason, it will be indicative of votes piling up in safe seats, and can therefore be discounted.
In the event that it is demonstrated that these votes are distributed more evenly across the seats, then the Greens are being underestimated and will take 10% off Labour, especially in marginals.
And in any case you can't compare a poll with an actual vote.
I think that sums it up?
This deltapoll poll is actually pretty similar to the last yougov poll of London in January:
Lab 55% Con 23% LD 9% Grn 7% Others 3%
Vote distribution in London will be very interesting this time, the Tories got extremely lucky in 2018 but we will see what happens this time.
I think the result in London in May compared directly to 2018 will be something like
We will see how that plays out in terms of seats particularly in places such as Wandsworth and if Labour does a much better job of expectation management than last time.
It does look like the Tories will lose control of Wandsworth for the first time since 1978 and may well lose control of Westminster for the first time ever if the swing in that Deltapoll in London is correct.
Kensington and Chelsea would be the only Tory controlled borough left in inner London.
Though the Tories would do better in suburban outer London and still hold Bexley which was NOC from 1994 to 1998 and Bromley which was NOC from 1998 to 2001 and Hillingdon which was Labour controlled from 1994 to 1998 and NOC from 1998 to 2006. They would lose control of Barnet though for the first time since 2002
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Modern empires obv don't work, I think the full wish is that it was the 1930s and we still had the empire
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Really? 39% of leavers answered yes, and this site is skewed to leave demographics, older, male and conservative. There must be quite a few closet empire fans on here wishing we still had one.
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Really? 39% of leavers answered yes, and this site is skewed to leave demographics, older, male and conservative. There must be quite a few closet empire fans on here wishing we still had one.
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
This site is skewed more to LDs than Leavers and Conservatives.
Of course if you back Empire you back military force to retain it but given most British voters and even a narrow majority of Tory voters do not want to bring back the Empire it is a purely hypothetical question
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Really? 39% of leavers answered yes, and this site is skewed to leave demographics, older, male and conservative. There must be quite a few closet empire fans on here wishing we still had one.
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
This site is skewed more to LDs than Leavers and Conservatives.
Of course if you back Empire you back military force to retain it but given most British voters and even a narrow majority of Tory voters do not want to bring back the Empire it is a purely hypothetical question
I thought as soon as it was a majority view amongst Tory voters, what the rest of us think was irrelevant? Or has that changed to take account of everyones views?
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Really? 39% of leavers answered yes, and this site is skewed to leave demographics, older, male and conservative. There must be quite a few closet empire fans on here wishing we still had one.
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
This site is skewed more to LDs than Leavers and Conservatives.
Of course if you back Empire you back military force to retain it but given most British voters and even a narrow majority of Tory voters do not want to bring back the Empire it is a purely hypothetical question
I thought as soon as it was a majority view amongst Tory voters, what the rest of us think was irrelevant? Or has that changed to take account of everyones views?
Given we have a Tory majority government what Tory voters think is paramount until the next general election, yes.
However as I said even a plurality of Tory voters did not want to bring back the Empire on that poll
Gotta love those Kremlin spokespersons going on about the West 'pushing Russia' toward the storming of Ukrainian cities and having the gall to intend to blame Russia for any civilian deaths when that happens.
It really is the 'why do you make me hit you?' rant of someone abusing their spouse, translated to international relations.
In many ways the Russians are cynically playing back to the west what it told its own populations during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The difference is that in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan - however misguided the west was in its actions - it was impossible to have much sympathy with the regimes that were being overthrown, so there were shades of grey. IE: Saddam Hussain did actually kill 5000 civilians with chemical weapons. The taliban were associated with terrorists. There was a credible counter narrative. In the case of Russia, there are no such shades of grey. Its just a clear cut question of right and wrong. Any sympathy people may have had towards their claims about NATO encirclement and mistreatment following the end of the cold war have gone. We are approaching the point where anyone who continues to express views that are sympathetic to Russia will be regarded as complicit in their genocide in Ukraine. The world has changed beyond all recognition in the last couple of weeks. What they are doing to Ukraine is so bad, it is beyond any justification. I have no idea how this plays out, but it is probably the end of globalisation and the interconnected world as we know it. Interesting times.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Modern empires obv don't work, I think the full wish is that it was the 1930s and we still had the empire
Yes, exactly. It's a purely hypothetical wish. This site doesn't have anyone keen to bring back the empire because we tend to discuss things through to their logical conclusions. I expect if you did a survey on whether people would like wings or eyes in the back of their heads you'd get a similarly surprisingly positive response, because these sorts of hypothetical questions don't force people to think of the consequences. The yougov survey represents an emotional response - but I think if anyone actually subjected the question to any mental scrutiny for a few minutes almost all of them would conclude, no, on balance, an empire wouldn't be a particularly good thing to have.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
All the maps I've seen have it firmly in Ukranian hands (Even more so than Kyiv), but apparently it has a naval blockade ?
Haven't seen that. But there's a possible invasion force which appeared, thren sailed off, and has now reappeared. My guess is that they're there to keep Ukrainian forces pinned down rather than actually planning to land. There is a probing movement west from Crimea which could cut it off from the rest of Ukraine if it continued, but that looks several weeks of war away, by which time...
They won't be winning in well run CON councils which keep Council Tax increases at a sensible level notwithstanding the huge once again inflation busting increase from the Greater London Authority.
They'll almost certain take Wandsworth on those figures. But to call it well run would be an insult
Let's see what happens! I believe LAB was disappointed in London in 2018. I think it will happen again 👍
Do you think the Tories will hold Wandsworth? Demographically they're losing it over time any way, a matter of when surely
Yes I do. I think we will hold all our Councils in London.
Not sure we will do a great deal in the councils which we don't control.
Lot of unhappiness in London about the constant well above inflation increases from GLA, what do they spend it on.
Can you explain why they'd hold Wandsworth?
From what I know of actually living in Wandsworth, people are fed up with the Tories and want to give them a kicking.
But then I said people actually liked Khan and I was told that was nonsense before he was re-elected
My understanding is that Wandsworth is a good Council which applies reasonable control over the Council Tax. But we shall see.
Wandsworth's Conservative group is currently racked with infighting. I expect Labour to gain this council.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Really? 39% of leavers answered yes, and this site is skewed to leave demographics, older, male and conservative. There must be quite a few closet empire fans on here wishing we still had one.
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
This site is skewed more to LDs than Leavers and Conservatives.
Of course if you back Empire you back military force to retain it but given most British voters and even a narrow majority of Tory voters do not want to bring back the Empire it is a purely hypothetical question
I thought as soon as it was a majority view amongst Tory voters, what the rest of us think was irrelevant? Or has that changed to take account of everyones views?
Given we have a Tory majority government what Tory voters think is paramount until the next general election, yes.
However as I said even a plurality of Tory voters did not want to bring back the Empire on that poll
You have this idea that this Government cares about what Tory voters currently think - that just isn't correct.
The only thing a Government cares about is where are their votes coming from at the next general election...
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
You don’t win a war with top trumps defence budgets.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Since Spain would never invade and the garrison could defend the FI, I take it from this that you only ever want to act with the US. Fine, though that isn’t your Government’s policy. If you want that we should follow the Israeli model and buy the last 10-20% of every US production run, and use them for maintenance.
It is the government's polcy. We only ever act militarily with NATO, the UN or US, we only ever would act on our own to defend the few remaining British overseas territories that is it.
From your Government’s Defence Command Paper:
“The 1st (UK) Division will be capable of operating independently or as part of multilateral deployments”.
Would you like me to explain what “independently” means?
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
39% of Leave voters and 38% of Conservative voters still wanted Britain to have an Empire on that poll. Though 43% of Tory voters and 40% of Leave voters did not.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
If we were to have an empire today, how are those in favour imagining it works?
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
I think we've already established that we don't have any fans of having a British Empire here. And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question. I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low. But that isn't really what we are talking about.
Modern empires obv don't work, I think the full wish is that it was the 1930s and we still had the empire
Yes, exactly. It's a purely hypothetical wish. This site doesn't have anyone keen to bring back the empire because we tend to discuss things through to their logical conclusions. I expect if you did a survey on whether people would like wings or eyes in the back of their heads you'd get a similarly surprisingly positive response, because these sorts of hypothetical questions don't force people to think of the consequences. The yougov survey represents an emotional response - but I think if anyone actually subjected the question to any mental scrutiny for a few minutes almost all of them would conclude, no, on balance, an empire wouldn't be a particularly good thing to have.
A desire for hypothetical wish fulfilment seems closely aligned with why we have ended up with a bullshitting fantasist as PM.
Comments
Can we have an UNS extrapolation on this poll please?
And London and the Conservatives have moved further apart since then...
Harland & Wolff with full order books and a closed shop to Fenians, restored gerrymandering to ensure continuing Prod hegemony and the Duke of Cambridge as governor regent of the province might do it.
However London is already the safest region of the UK and was even in 2019 and the latest Yougov has Labour 29% ahead in London but only 6% ahead across the UK.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/10/voting-intention-con-33-lab-39-8-9-mar
Even at the 2019 general election where the Tories were 12% ahead nationally, Labour was 16% ahead in London
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
All the maps I've seen have it firmly in Ukranian hands (Even more so than Kyiv), but apparently it has a naval blockade ?
Left-wing Twitter’s full of this stuff. Carol Cadwalladr’s churning it out by the ton.
No doubt it’ll be poo-poohed but what if there’s some truth here? I’m inclined to think Johnson’s not a traitor, surely he hasn’t deliberately betrayed the UK. But it looks like he’s shown terrible judgement in his choice of friends, drinking buddies and acquaintances, a willingness to overlook where the money might be coming from and what these people’s agendas might be.
Maybe chutzpah and a total lack of shame or sense of personal responsibility will get him through this like it seems to be doing with partygate. But surely the point will come when the wider Tory party, it’s MPs and voters, even for them the shadiness will become too uncomfortable to ignore?
Or, cos Johnson is still seen to be a winner and he rammed through a nice, veiny, rock hard Brexit, will it all be conveniently disregarded? Will the allegations be dismissed as ‘unhelpful’? Perhaps they’re ‘premature’?
The Tories under Johnson are the mirror image of Labour under Corbyn. The fucking nutters are in charge, the ideological grassroots fucking love it while everyone else looks on in horror.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
A lot of people have been arguing for it for a long time.
There was a Russian naval fleet in the area last week, but they did a u-turn and headed back to Crimea, for reasons unknown but reported by the Ukranians as a mutiny. They are said to be gathering again over this weekend though, perhaps coming back for another go at Odessa shortly.
Mayor of Odessa definitely seems to be up for the fight, if and when it happens. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/06/gennadiy-leonidovich-trukhanov-odesa-ukraine-invasion-russia/
Although the largest beneficiaries could be the LDs mainly in SW London. I think Labour will be hard pushed to gain seats net in London as they could lose a few to the LDs in Merton and some seats to the Greens in some inner London boroughs even if they narrowly gain control of Wandsworth and Barnet councils.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Since Spain would never invade and the garrison could defend the FI, I take it from this that you only ever want to act with the US. Fine, though that isn’t your Government’s policy. If you want that we should follow the Israeli model and buy the last 10-20% of every US production run, and use them for maintenance.
She can definitely give as good as she gets
She can definitely give as good as she gets
https://www.youtube.com/c/SpeakTheTruth1/videos
It seems that the Russia's are facing a lot of resistance through a couple of towns which are the major routes to Odesa, so can't get very close with any sort of numbers.
In the event that it cannot be discounted for some reason, it will be indicative of votes piling up in safe seats, and can therefore be discounted.
In the event that it is demonstrated that these votes are distributed more evenly across the seats, then the Greens are being underestimated and will take 10% off Labour, especially in marginals.
And in any case you can't compare a poll with an actual vote.
I think that sums it up?
Some decent anti-ship missiles to Odesa might be a useful bit of equipment.
Rare error there, Foxy. Boxing evidently not your specialist subject.
61% of Labour voters, 81% of LDs and 66% of Remainers did not want Britain to still have an Empire however
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/z7uxxko71z/YouGov - British empire attitudes.pdf
Is there freedom of movement? Are the satellites democracies or run by direct rule?
Empire fans please explain.
'As the commissar slowly undid his Sam Browne belt, the zek crouching before him looked longingly at his muscular thighs bulging beneath his NKVD issue breeches..'
I'd actually be quite surprised if some version of this didn't exist in the many mansioned world of porn.
Lab 55%
Con 23%
LD 9%
Grn 7%
Others 3%
Vote distribution in London will be very interesting this time, the Tories got extremely lucky in 2018 but we will see what happens this time.
I think the result in London in May compared directly to 2018 will be something like
Lab 48% (+4)
Con 25% (-4)
LD 15% (+1)
Grn 10% (+1)
We will see how that plays out in terms of seats particularly in places such as Wandsworth and if Labour does a much better job of expectation management than last time.
It really is the 'why do you make me hit you?' rant of someone abusing their spouse, translated to international relations.
He's so arrogant and so stupid that he probably thinks it is *he* doing the manipulating.
Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
9m
Russia's National Guard chief Viktor Zolotov has said Russia's military operation in Ukraine is not going as quickly as the Kremlin wants, in the strongest public acknowledgment yet from Moscow that things aren’t going to plan.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503349436252135427
===
He is now on a train to Siberia with one way ticket no doubt.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will not give his scheduled Monday address to the Council of Europe, citing “urgent, unforeseen circumstances.”
The Hill
And I'd suggest those who wish the British still had an empire in that poll haven't really thought it through. It's like the No Fly Zone question.
I think there are plenty of people who don't view the British Empire negatively. But that isn't the same thing, although it can sometimes look like it.
That said, there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which includes such outposts as St. Helena, the Falklands, Bermuda, Gibraltar... Not massive in terms of population, but not entirely without use. Crucially, these people consent to be part of an empire - appetite for going it alone tends to be low.
But that isn't really what we are talking about.
"The National Guard/Rosgvardiya is separate from the Russian Armed Forces.[2] A law signed by President Vladimir Putin established the federal executive body in 2016. The National Guard has the stated mission of securing Russia's borders, taking charge of gun control, combating terrorism and organized crime, protecting public order and guarding important state facilities.[3]"
Kensington and Chelsea would be the only Tory controlled borough left in inner London.
Though the Tories would do better in suburban outer London and still hold Bexley which was NOC from 1994 to 1998 and Bromley which was NOC from 1998 to 2001 and Hillingdon which was Labour controlled from 1994 to 1998 and NOC from 1998 to 2006. They would lose control of Barnet though for the first time since 2002
Another topical question that occurs to those fans today. What to do if an outer part of the empire wants to set its own course, perhaps even aligning with a UK rival instead of us? Do we let them or use military force?
Of course if you back Empire you back military force to retain it but given most British voters and even a narrow majority of Tory voters do not want to bring back the Empire it is a purely hypothetical question
However as I said even a plurality of Tory voters did not want to bring back the Empire on that poll
The difference is that in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan - however misguided the west was in its actions - it was impossible to have much sympathy with the regimes that were being overthrown, so there were shades of grey.
IE: Saddam Hussain did actually kill 5000 civilians with chemical weapons. The taliban were associated with terrorists.
There was a credible counter narrative.
In the case of Russia, there are no such shades of grey. Its just a clear cut question of right and wrong. Any sympathy people may have had towards their claims about NATO encirclement and mistreatment following the end of the cold war have gone.
We are approaching the point where anyone who continues to express views that are sympathetic to Russia will be regarded as complicit in their genocide in Ukraine.
The world has changed beyond all recognition in the last couple of weeks.
What they are doing to Ukraine is so bad, it is beyond any justification.
I have no idea how this plays out, but it is probably the end of globalisation and the interconnected world as we know it.
Interesting times.
This site doesn't have anyone keen to bring back the empire because we tend to discuss things through to their logical conclusions.
I expect if you did a survey on whether people would like wings or eyes in the back of their heads you'd get a similarly surprisingly positive response, because these sorts of hypothetical questions don't force people to think of the consequences.
The yougov survey represents an emotional response - but I think if anyone actually subjected the question to any mental scrutiny for a few minutes almost all of them would conclude, no, on balance, an empire wouldn't be a particularly good thing to have.
But I'm impressed that virtually nobody in Japan wants their empire back - shows an impressive lack of irredentism.
Just don't ask about the .9's.
https://twitter.com/benphillips76/status/1503311358699442178
The only thing a Government cares about is where are their votes coming from at the next general election...
“The 1st (UK) Division will be capable of operating independently or as part of multilateral deployments”.
Would you like me to explain what “independently” means?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974661/CP411_-Defence_Command_Plan.pdf