Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
Ms. Livermore, if we're makng D&D comparisons then Boris Johnson is obviously the bard whose endless pursuit of skirt constantly imperils the party, and Putin is a warlock who made a pact with an unspeakable horror and has gradually devolved from ruthless but intelligent to a pure evil nutcase.
Interesting. He clearly still sees Boris's authority as weak enough to challenge, despite all the pressures of the global situation. And going on the evidence of yesterday, he's probably right.
Rishi's star is back in the ascendency....
The risk of laying a 2023 election is that Boris is ousted and Rishi goes for an early "honeymoon" election. It would have to overcome the benefit of waiting for new boundaries and a very jittery Party thinking of 2017 Redux. But it is not such a low risk as to make it a lay.
How much of a honeymoon is the man in charge of the economy likely to get during a bout of stagflation ? That some of its causes are outside of his control is unlikely to help him much.
That’s not an attack on him, just a genuine question.
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
"Brexit is in peril" still works as a rallying call, but it's not obvious that it always will, outside a small circle of sozzled hacks.
It only works as long as "Brexit is shit" doesn't take hold
It will continue to work for those who see Brexit as the point of Brexit. Not all of them are sozzled hacks, though many are. But I suspect they're a minority.
But the interesting group who voted Brexit in order to make something happen. What will they think/do when their something doesn't happen?
And so the great game of democracy, where the final whistle is never blown, continues.
This is why I said both Boris and the FBPE are both making a mistake. 2024 will be about anything but Brexit.
Like Churchill in 1945 - it was no longer about winning the war - it was about the future, something Labour (then) had a vision for. Will they in 2024?
"Brexit is in peril" still works as a rallying call, but it's not obvious that it always will, outside a small circle of sozzled hacks.
It only works as long as "Brexit is shit" doesn't take hold
It will continue to work for those who see Brexit as the point of Brexit. Not all of them are sozzled hacks, though many are. But I suspect they're a minority.
But the interesting group who voted Brexit in order to make something happen. What will they think/do when their something doesn't happen?
And so the great game of democracy, where the final whistle is never blown, continues.
For most normal people the whistle has blown - just look how far the salience of the issue has dropped down the general populace: now well under 20%.
"This", now, is the new normal. And for most people it's indistinguishable from life in, say, 2015. It's fine except for some extra bureaucracy around the edges, which isn't meaningful enough to shift the dial. They've moved on.
This is why I said both Boris and the FBPE are both making a mistake. 2024 will be about anything but Brexit.
The latter is neither in office, nor going to contest the next election, so any mistake they are making is irrelevant.
Interesting. He clearly still sees Boris's authority as weak enough to challenge, despite all the pressures of the global situation. And going on the evidence of yesterday, he's probably right.
Rishi's star is back in the ascendency....
The risk of laying a 2023 election is that Boris is ousted and Rishi goes for an early "honeymoon" election. It would have to overcome the benefit of waiting for new boundaries and a very jittery Party thinking of 2017 Redux. But it is not such a low risk as to make it a lay.
How much of a honeymoon is the man in charge of the economy likely to get during a bout of stagflation ? That some of its causes are outside of his control is unlikely to help him much.
That’s not an attack on him, just a genuine question.
I would trust him more to marshall the political case to still vote Conservative in that situation than I do Boris. Nuance, subtlety, persuasion...are at least in his armoury.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I finally got around to watching The Death of Stalin last night. Very good but it did make you think Putin seriously needs the Beria treatment. He has grown into a monster.
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
Ms. Livermore, if we're makng D&D comparisons then Boris Johnson is obviously the bard whose endless pursuit of skirt constantly imperils the party, and Putin is a warlock who made a pact with an unspeakable horror and has gradually devolved from ruthless but intelligent to a pure evil nutcase.
I think that fits in quite well with these!
Chaotic Neutral "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."
Neutral Evil A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Dan Hannan is a foundational member of the Speccie/Telegraph set that now runs the country.
"There is obviously a difference between identity politics and genocide," he writes in the Telegraph. "But it is, if you think about it, a difference of degree."
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
Yep. I can remember there being the odd t**t at school but I wouldn't compare them to a mafia don.
Well, odd t**ts at school cause a few hundred suicides every year, and 100 times as much sub-suicidal misery. And get away with a lot because of the moral obtuseness of people who think that evil means (only) Don Corleone.
Johnson doesn't send armies to neighbouring countries to destroy cities and murder the inhabitants. It's grotesque to make a moral comparison between him and Putin.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
But the consequences can turn out to be not very different. It is a good deal more likely than not that people were tortured to death in Afghanistan who might have got a flight out, but carrie is a doggie person. awww.
Both Putin and Johnson have hollowed out civic society in their respective countries - Putin to a greater extent than Johnson. Johnson isn't a benign fool. Johnson is neither benign nor a fool.
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
Another angle to Johnson's Brexit comments is that the EU is quite likely to disappoint Ukraine regarding how willing it will be to conduct a fast accession process. It's also not absurd to argue that being caught in a tug of war between two competing customs unions was one of the root causes of the conflict, and Brexit gives the UK the opportunity to stand for a different model.
I'm sorry, but it definitely is absurd to suggest that competing customs unions was the cause of the conflict. The cause of the conflict was entirely in the fascist fever dream of a small number of people at the heart of the Russian state, and the despotic and violent power structures that preserve them in power. There is no sense in which Ukraine, the EU, the UK, the USA, or anyone outside the Kremlin is in any meaningful way a cause, even a minor one.
It's rarely as simple as this in international politics, but this time it is.
I disagree. And I DESPISE what Putin has done
NATO and the EU over-reached, and we were insensitive to Russian feelings, and its sense of itself as a Great Power with a sphere of influence
This does not justify the horrors Putin has unleased. It is more like noting that the clumsy Versailles Treaty eventually led, with its overdone punishments, to the rise of Hitler
Hitler was a unique evil. But did the victorious WW1 allies have a role in his rise? Sadly, yes
Either Ukraine is sovereign or it is not. If it is, then it is entirely legitimate for them to seek any kind of alliance, treaty, or membership whatsoever with zero recourse for anyone else to prevent them. If it is not, and you think that somebody else has a legitimate claim to Ukraine (or any part of it), you need to ask yourself whether they have always acted in a way that accords with that claim. The key document to help you here is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which states:
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
So Russia is in no position to whine about "spheres of influence"* because it voluntarily and explicitly renounced exactly that
Russia did not do this at the point of a baïonnette and nor had it just surrendered. The WW1 analogy is patently silly.
Last month, NI civil servants took advice from someone – Whitehall says the EU – to harden the Irish Sea border, but didn't tell their minister. Firms lost money after GB loads were arbitrarily turned back by secretly altered rules - with no compensation.
For two government departments to blame each other for a major policy change, as here, is highly unusual - but not unheard of. But for two departments to say that their ministers had no role in the policy is remarkable. It means no one is democratically accountable for this.
1- It is exactly the sort of thing Brussels would try to do, and exactly how they would do it. 2 - I think UK Civil Service has an inertia all its own. Very Sir Humphrey.
After all their Brexit is done they still try to blame the EU for everything. We have seen in technicolour that the UK ails have never been due to EU but home grown by mendacious useless UK grubby politicians.
And....We have seen in technicolour that Scotland's ails have never been due to Westminster but home grown by mendacious useless Scottish grubby politicians.
I would disagree a bit their Mark, not sure if 50/50 but both lots are equally to blame for sure. One day if UK ever becomes democratic we will get a chance to vote for what we want. Hopefully some of them not crooks and people who could not run a bath as we have at present.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
True, but it’s not unfair to blame Johnson for carelessly increasing the risk to her.
I believe it made zero difference. What did? Paying the money we owed. Now states should not act in this way. But it’s wrong to say that it was Johnson’s fault.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I finally got around to watching The Death of Stalin last night. Very good but it did make you think Putin seriously needs the Beria treatment. He has grown into a monster.
Crowley and Isaacs were both superb.
and Buscemi, Beale, Palin, Tambor and everyone else
Interesting. He clearly still sees Boris's authority as weak enough to challenge, despite all the pressures of the global situation. And going on the evidence of yesterday, he's probably right.
Rishi's star is back in the ascendency....
The risk of laying a 2023 election is that Boris is ousted and Rishi goes for an early "honeymoon" election. It would have to overcome the benefit of waiting for new boundaries and a very jittery Party thinking of 2017 Redux. But it is not such a low risk as to make it a lay.
How much of a honeymoon is the man in charge of the economy likely to get during a bout of stagflation ? That some of its causes are outside of his control is unlikely to help him much.
That’s not an attack on him, just a genuine question.
I would trust him more to marshall the political case to still vote Conservative in that situation than I do Boris. Nuance, subtlety, persuasion...are at least in his armoury.
Would anyone sentient disagree with that ? But it hardly answers the question.
Ms. Livermore, if we're makng D&D comparisons then Boris Johnson is obviously the bard whose endless pursuit of skirt constantly imperils the party, and Putin is a warlock who made a pact with an unspeakable horror and has gradually devolved from ruthless but intelligent to a pure evil nutcase.
I think that fits in quite well with these!
Chaotic Neutral "A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."
Neutral Evil A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
As ever I think Shakespeare put it best:
I had no father, I am like no father; I have no brother, I am like no brother; And this word, "love", which greybeards call divine, Be resident in men like one another And not in me -- I am myself alone.
Priti on how we are lovely inclusive people, but Ukrainians will abuse our trust by turning out to be Putinist sleepers weighed down with novichok.
We continue to disgrace ourselves over this refugee crisis. "Fear of the forrin" really has become embedded in what the Johnson party thinks people are concerned about.
That Johnson is crass and immoral is a given. What should worry any intelligent Tory - if there are any left - is that the speech he made yesterday shows he has nothing to offer except division and negativity. There was no vision, no new ideas, no plan for a better tomorrow. All he has is culture war and Brexit. So that’s all the Tories have. Given what’s happening and, more important, what’s coming, it’s very hard to see it being enough. On that basis, the latest possible date for an election is much likelier than one being held next year.
Boris is too lazy and ignorant to come up with some grand plan. He's already screwed up levelling-up, build back better looks empty, and live with covid looks like it will bite us on the arse soon enough. The idea of Boris having some plan for Cold War 2.0 and completely restructuring defence, trade, and energy policy over the next few years is simply preposterous.
He and his cabinet need to get the boot ASAP, and if there aren't any other Tories who can govern competently then the whole lot of them need to go in a general election.
Interesting. He clearly still sees Boris's authority as weak enough to challenge, despite all the pressures of the global situation. And going on the evidence of yesterday, he's probably right.
Rishi's star is back in the ascendency....
The risk of laying a 2023 election is that Boris is ousted and Rishi goes for an early "honeymoon" election. It would have to overcome the benefit of waiting for new boundaries and a very jittery Party thinking of 2017 Redux. But it is not such a low risk as to make it a lay.
Like him or not Rishi is confident and even reassuring and to those who have written him off may prove to be wrong
My hope is that sometime in the next 12 months there is a rapprochement in Russia and Boris can either hand over the office or if not the mps take action to remove him
We all know Boris is lazy and does not do detail but he has a chance to leave office with a future secured on the International speaking stage
We agree.
He could become the international ambassador for rebuilding Ukraine. Although - scrap that. Too many gorgeous leggy blondes in Ukraine...
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
Dan Hannan is a foundational member of the Speccie/Telegraph set that now runs the country.
"There is obviously a difference between identity politics and genocide," he writes in the Telegraph. "But it is, if you think about it, a difference of degree."
Identity politics is a threat to the basic principle that every human life has equal worth. It attributes different worth and values to specific, largely socially constructed, self identifying groups of people. It doesn't take much foresight to see how this leads to a risk of genocide. I don't know for sure, but I think this would have been obvious to previous generations who were perhaps a bit wiser to the dangers of totalitarianism following the experience of the second world war and the USSR.
The embrace of identity politics in the UK is perhaps best understood as an alliance of two things: an incoming generation who have no experience of war and totalitarianism, and an older generation who are revulsed by Brexit.
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
In the current circumstances it is not a stupid idea. I am not a fan of windfall taxes particularly if you don't do the reverse when commodity prices are very low, but circumstances!
Also note that Boris said at PMQs that a windfall tax would result in suppliers increasing prices. He is either completely ignorant of commodity pricing or being deliberately dishonest.
The Right on here won't like this but Boris Johnson is very similar to Vladimir Putin.
Both share the attempt to recast reality, to warp truth, to generate something from the opposite of what is actually true.
Here's another example of classic Johnson Putinism. Knowing he is vulnerable to attacks over dirty Russian donations to the tory party, Johnson has upturned the truth to make out it's Keir Starmer who is opening the floodgates to dirty Russian money.
Johnson is a lying shit. An unflushable turd. The nastiest piece of work to be our PM in at least a century. A Putinist.
I'm not a Boris fan, but that's a ridiculous comparison. It's also quite a nasty one. If you look at what Putin has done over the last twenty years to his country, there is zero comparison. Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
Well it may have a hint of hyperbole about it, but I do think Boris is evil.
The UK leaving the EU was predicated on evil lies and there are countless other examples from that macro level to micro ones which aren't so micro if you are the one on the receiving end. I know of people who have been traduced by his lies, smeared into despair and suicidal thoughts. He tramples on people for his own egomania.
Boris Johnson is evil.
If Boris is 'evil', then you need to have another term for the really evil people, such as Putin. Uber-evil? evil-max?
The Right on here won't like this but Boris Johnson is very similar to Vladimir Putin.
Both share the attempt to recast reality, to warp truth, to generate something from the opposite of what is actually true.
Here's another example of classic Johnson Putinism. Knowing he is vulnerable to attacks over dirty Russian donations to the tory party, Johnson has upturned the truth to make out it's Keir Starmer who is opening the floodgates to dirty Russian money.
Johnson is a lying shit. An unflushable turd. The nastiest piece of work to be our PM in at least a century. A Putinist.
I'm not a Boris fan, but that's a ridiculous comparison. It's also quite a nasty one. If you look at what Putin has done over the last twenty years to his country, there is zero comparison. Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
Well it may have a hint of hyperbole about it, but I do think Boris is evil.
The UK leaving the EU was predicated on evil lies and there are countless other examples from that macro level to micro ones which aren't so micro if you are the one on the receiving end. I know of people who have been traduced by his lies, smeared into despair and suicidal thoughts. He tramples on people for his own egomania.
Boris Johnson is evil.
If Boris is 'evil', then you need to have another term for the really evil people, such as Putin. Uber-evil? evil-max?
Your last paragraph is ridiculous.
What a silly remark. There's that guy the Godwin thing is about, and there's literally millions of small time bullies who get through a lifetime of selfishly making life mildly unpleasant for everyone in their ambit, in many cases never actually breaking any law. Both are evil, why shouldn't they be? Evil is not some sort of inverted super power confined to film baddies.
I utterly disagree with that. If you term more and more things as 'evil' then the word loses all power and becomes redundant.
There are deeds and people that are, IMV, 'evil'. For instance, Fred West was evil as both a person and in the deeds he did. If you start saying that anyone you dislike is 'evil', it reduces the crimes of the really bad people.
"lifetime of selfishly making life mildly unpleasant for everyone in their ambit"
I'd call that nasty. 'evil' is another level beyond that IMO.
I am happy to stick with evil. Nasty is cheese and onion pringles.
Then you are a very black-and-white person. Which to be fair, is the way you often post.
Shit, logic circuits seem to be down in many areas this morning. I am arguing that there are different degrees of evil. That is plainly a shades of grey position and the opposite of a black and white position
No. You are expanding 'evil' so much that there is no grey zone between evil and not-evil.
I've met a few people in life who I would call nasty: a couple in my professional life, and one or two in my personal life. I have only ever met one person who I would call genuinely 'evil'. Sadly AFAIAA he never ended up in jail, but never mind.
You caused me to pause and reflect there, Mr J, and from quite a long life I'm inclined to agree. Interestingly I once knew someone who, as a youth, seemed to be aiming for evil, but then, after National Service met a girl who, his mother told me, saw 'something in him', and so far as I know is now a model citizen. Although I haven't seen him for years I looked him up on (IIRC) Linked In a while ago, and that seems to be the case.
Johnson is an insignificant man, for whom life has always been a game and where nothing has real consequence - because nothing risks real suffering or loss; the concept is simply incomprehensible to him.
A shame we don't see more of David posting on here of late. He captures it brilliantly.
Not sure he does? "Insignificant man" is strange. And I think the PM intended it to be offensive, so did comprehend how it would be perceived by many.
Maybe superficial would be a better word than insignificant?
I think 'insignificant' matters politically though. There's not much point trying to get inside Johnson's head and work out an ideology. It's all about self promotion with him. Sex, power, popularity.
There's several words to suit but Starmer nailed it with "trivial man" imo. No moral or intellectual seriousness, no depth or substance, nothing driving what he says and does other than shallow self-gratification. It's amazing and not in a good way that such a person is PM of the United Kingdom. It shames us.
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
In campaigning mode already, Big_G ?
I want answers from Labour that are sustainable and relevant
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
LOL
I like to bring something to smile about from time to time.
Anyway, it is a glorious day here. I am off to Matterdale to have a walk round James Rebanks' farm, learn about all his various nature-improving schemes and look at cows. It should be interesting. He is a fine writer as well.
So I will leave you all to your interesting fights on here.
Boris should be quoting Kipling, quoting Browning, with hints for assassination
Or who, in Moscow, toward the Czar, With the demurest of footfalls Over the Kremlin's pavement, bright With serpentine and syenite, Steps, with five other generals, That simultaneously take snuff, For each to have pretext enough To kerchiefwise unfurl his sash Which, softness' self, is yet the stuff To hold fast where a steel chain snaps, And leave the grand white neck no gash?
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
Priti on how we are lovely inclusive people, but Ukrainians will abuse our trust by turning out to be Putinist sleepers weighed down with novichok.
We continue to disgrace ourselves over this refugee crisis. "Fear of the forrin" really has become embedded in what the Johnson party thinks people are concerned about.
I suspect there's a structural problem preventing asylum for Ukrainians that goes beyond the normal Home Office incompetence and Patel malevolence.
The UK has effectively closed any legal route to claim asylum. They are struggling to enable usable routes for limited claims only by Ukrainians.
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
LOL
I like to bring something to smile about from time to time.
Anyway, it is a glorious day here. I am off to Matterdale to have a walk round James Rebanks' farm, learn about all his various nature-improving schemes and look at cows. It should be interesting. He is a fine writer as well.
So I will leave you all to your interesting fights on here.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
We had a free and democratic vote. Leave won. Move on. Nagging at it like a dog with a bone won't improve things.
Raised by The Prime Minister. Because he can't move on. Because he promised elephants on sticks and neither have been produced.
So we can't move on because impossible promises have been made by the party in government and if it wants to stay in government it either needs to produce results or apportion the blame.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
Can I put a 'half-like', please. As FS he clearly made matters worse.
The Homes for Ukraine scheme is mired in excessive bureaucracy with no thought given to the desperate situation facing Ukrainian families fleeing Russian aggression. This is a serious crisis, not online dating. Government needs to grip this urgently.
It absolutely doesn't work. Anybody trying to use it is wasting their time at the moment.
I've been scrolling up so didn't know what this comment related to. Could have been a great many things even presuming it was government related.
I haven't tried to use it. But the one person I know who has offered house space (actually an entire house) to Ukrainian refugees has had no problem in doing so. Following my experience of post-Brexit passport control queues - which, contrary to my expectations following gleeful tales of doom, worked perfectly smoothly - I wonder if this is one of those occasions where a few bad experiences of beem generalised to the norm. Comparatively easy to do with an experiences ce relatively few people actually have.
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
I wonder what the latest practical GE date is. Suppose things continue to get worse for the Conservatives and any swing back is a feeble thing.
In theory, he could hang on until a December 2024 dissolution / early 2025 election, but hanging on that blatantly and having a campaign straddling Christmas will just annoy everyone.
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
There is a love of unearned money among Conservative politicians (and the establishment generally).
I wonder if it is based upon some wannabe aristo disdain for earned money.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
We can't even say that. The Iranians had an iron fist around her until we paid. There was no level to which they could upgrade their resolve.
You can say we didn't break out of being in lock-step with the US in our response. Where the debt we owed (but couldn't pay because of sanctions restrictions) got messily entangled with the sanctions on Iran for trying to build a bomb. But if you want to suggest that we should have cut Iran some slack on making their bomb to get her home earlier - well, I'd point you to our worries about Putin using the bomb.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
And Anoosheh Ashoori, who was seized at pretty much the same time, locked up in the same way, also went on hunger strike and was ignored, had repeated trumped up charges which were, if anything, even more absurd against him in kangaroo courts, and of whom Boris spoke of, to my knowledge, not at all was treated exactly the same. That is clear and obvious evidence that what Boris said made no difference. Doesn't make what Boris said right, doesn't make it smart, but it does make it irrelevant. The evil was what Iran did, not what Boris said.
1/Reading about Great Ormond Street Hospital cancellation of child psychiatry training event including gender-critical speakers (@HJoyceGender & @cwknews) it seems clearer & clearer that staff/student networks set up under auspices of Diversity & Inclusion are.. 2/.. running a campaign against knowledge/ideas that don't fit with gender-activist, affirmation-only model of treatment for gender dysphoria. Based in part on spurious comparison to homophobia -since being gay/ lesbian does not require medical treatment or surgery - .. 3/.. they block discussion & accuse anyone with different perspective of being a bigot. It's unconscionable. These are children's bodies & no one knows longterm outcomes for current, unprecedented cohort of adolescent/ young adult females with dysphoria.
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
I wonder what the latest practical GE date is. Suppose things continue to get worse for the Conservatives and any swing back is a feeble thing.
In theory, he could hang on until a December 2024 dissolution / early 2025 election, but hanging on that blatantly and having a campaign straddling Christmas will just annoy everyone.
Late October 2024?
This was discussed yesterday and the latest GE date is January 2025 but Autumn 2024 seems likely
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
The Homes for Ukraine scheme is mired in excessive bureaucracy with no thought given to the desperate situation facing Ukrainian families fleeing Russian aggression. This is a serious crisis, not online dating. Government needs to grip this urgently.
It absolutely doesn't work. Anybody trying to use it is wasting their time at the moment.
I've been scrolling up so didn't know what this comment related to. Could have been a great many things even presuming it was government related.
I haven't tried to use it. But the one person I know who has offered house space (actually an entire house) to Ukrainian refugees has had no problem in doing so.
Have the Ukranians arrived?
It actually made things worse for us because it cancelled an existing visa application and replaced it with... nothing.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
Not in the box marked evil, for sure.
And say just the one person has been killed in Afghanistan who would have escaped and survived but for jolly old Boris, does that tilt the balance?
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
I wonder what the latest practical GE date is. Suppose things continue to get worse for the Conservatives and any swing back is a feeble thing.
In theory, he could hang on until a December 2024 dissolution / early 2025 election, but hanging on that blatantly and having a campaign straddling Christmas will just annoy everyone.
Late October 2024?
This was discussed yesterday and the latest GE date is January 2025 but Autumn 2024 seems likely
In theory yes, but a government that clung on that long would just be annoying everyone. Canvassing and voting in the dark, a campaign that straddles Christmas.
The rules may allow it, but only a government with a death wish would do it.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
I'm not sure you've understood.
It's a two dimensional scale, with chaos/law on one axis and good/evil on the other.
Johnson is chaotic, but neither good nor evil.
Putin is evil and picks chaos or law to best suit himself.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
If you want near term solutions to energy dependence on Russia, the UK hydrocarbons infrastructure is there, in place, with (for the most part) capacity.
Compare with nuclear coming on line in what - twenty years? If you can get through planning and find the tens of billions for subsidies, that is.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
"Brexit is in peril" still works as a rallying call, but it's not obvious that it always will, outside a small circle of sozzled hacks.
It only works as long as "Brexit is shit" doesn't take hold
It will continue to work for those who see Brexit as the point of Brexit. Not all of them are sozzled hacks, though many are. But I suspect they're a minority.
But the interesting group who voted Brexit in order to make something happen. What will they think/do when their something doesn't happen?
And so the great game of democracy, where the final whistle is never blown, continues.
For most normal people the whistle has blown - just look how far the salience of the issue has dropped down the general populace: now well under 20%.
"This", now, is the new normal. And for most people it's indistinguishable from life in, say, 2015. It's fine except for some extra bureaucracy around the edges, which isn't meaningful enough to shift the dial. They've moved on.
This is why I said both Boris and the FBPE are both making a mistake. 2024 will be about anything but Brexit.
The latter is neither in office, nor going to contest the next election, so any mistake they are making is irrelevant.
True, but they are influential on the media commentariat and both the Labour and Liberal Democrat membership - and hitherto the leadership. So I wouldn't say they are irrelevant.
However, Starmer would be well advised to sup with them with a very long spoon.
"Brexit is in peril" still works as a rallying call, but it's not obvious that it always will, outside a small circle of sozzled hacks.
It only works as long as "Brexit is shit" doesn't take hold
It will continue to work for those who see Brexit as the point of Brexit. Not all of them are sozzled hacks, though many are. But I suspect they're a minority.
But the interesting group who voted Brexit in order to make something happen. What will they think/do when their something doesn't happen?
And so the great game of democracy, where the final whistle is never blown, continues.
For most normal people the whistle has blown - just look how far the salience of the issue has dropped down the general populace: now well under 20%.
"This", now, is the new normal. And for most people it's indistinguishable from life in, say, 2015. It's fine except for some extra bureaucracy around the edges, which isn't meaningful enough to shift the dial. They've moved on.
This is why I said both Boris and the FBPE are both making a mistake. 2024 will be about anything but Brexit.
I agree. And so does Starmer, which is why it is risky for Boris to keep "banging on about Brexit".
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
Here's the problem though: Net Zero even if a success, decades down the line, doesn't make anything "better" it just stops things getting worse. It's sacrifice for a very long term payoff of neutrality at best.
It's not hard to see how energy security and the cost of living will trump it. For it to get real traction it has to be make life cleaner, nicer, better, cheaper, more fun.. all the positive things the green movement hate.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
And the SNP alike. We need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use for both economic and environmental reasons. But - and its a big but - we're not about to immediately stop. Which means we need access to fossil fuels. And drilling it out of our own waters seems like a far better idea than piping / shipping it from elsewhere.
Opening up a new oil field is NOT contrary to Net Zero. We can continue to work towards the planned phased reduction in oil and gas use whilst being self-sufficient on what we are using. I don't see how people can't see this, its not a difficult concept.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
I wonder what the latest practical GE date is. Suppose things continue to get worse for the Conservatives and any swing back is a feeble thing.
In theory, he could hang on until a December 2024 dissolution / early 2025 election, but hanging on that blatantly and having a campaign straddling Christmas will just annoy everyone.
Late October 2024?
This was discussed yesterday and the latest GE date is January 2025 but Autumn 2024 seems likely
In theory yes, but a government that clung on that long would just be annoying everyone. Canvassing and voting in the dark, a campaign that straddles Christmas.
The rules may allow it, but only a government with a death wish would do it.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
The options are do the sustainable thing over the next few years (the tech is largely invented) or spend a couple of years setting up fracking and then doing the sustainable thing a couple of decades down the line.
Apart from giving the fossil fuel industry a last hurrah, I'm not sure what the advantage of increasing UK fossil fuel extraction is.
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
Not in the box marked evil, for sure.
And say just the one person has been killed in Afghanistan who would have escaped and survived but for jolly old Boris, does that tilt the balance?
Was there intent to kill that one person?
Compare with bombing a clearly marked school or theatre used as a shelter for women and children, destroyed with a precision weapon. Likening Boris to Putin in the evil stakes just destroys the credibility of the person making that comparison. Assuming they had any in the first place.
"Brexit is in peril" still works as a rallying call, but it's not obvious that it always will, outside a small circle of sozzled hacks.
It only works as long as "Brexit is shit" doesn't take hold
It will continue to work for those who see Brexit as the point of Brexit. Not all of them are sozzled hacks, though many are. But I suspect they're a minority.
But the interesting group who voted Brexit in order to make something happen. What will they think/do when their something doesn't happen?
And so the great game of democracy, where the final whistle is never blown, continues.
For most normal people the whistle has blown - just look how far the salience of the issue has dropped down the general populace: now well under 20%.
"This", now, is the new normal. And for most people it's indistinguishable from life in, say, 2015. It's fine except for some extra bureaucracy around the edges, which isn't meaningful enough to shift the dial. They've moved on.
This is why I said both Boris and the FBPE are both making a mistake. 2024 will be about anything but Brexit.
I agree. And so does Starmer, which is why it is risky for Boris to keep "banging on about Brexit".
Back down to 33% or so for the Tories in the next poll, judging from the comments below on here. They remind me somewhat of the broad consensus against during the worst moments of Partygate, for the Tories.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
And the SNP alike. We need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use for both economic and environmental reasons. But - and its a big but - we're not about to immediately stop. Which means we need access to fossil fuels. And drilling it out of our own waters seems like a far better idea than piping / shipping it from elsewhere.
Opening up a new oil field is NOT contrary to Net Zero. We can continue to work towards the planned phased reduction in oil and gas use whilst being self-sufficient on what we are using. I don't see how people can't see this, its not a difficult concept.
Priti on how we are lovely inclusive people, but Ukrainians will abuse our trust by turning out to be Putinist sleepers weighed down with novichok.
We continue to disgrace ourselves over this refugee crisis. "Fear of the forrin" really has become embedded in what the Johnson party thinks people are concerned about.
I suspect there's a structural problem preventing asylum for Ukrainians that goes beyond the normal Home Office incompetence and Patel malevolence.
The UK has effectively closed any legal route to claim asylum. They are struggling to enable usable routes for limited claims only by Ukrainians.
We know the Home Office are useless. But this isn't the bad old civil service blocking Boris and Priti's humanitarian benevolence. This is Boris and Priti saying "no forrin invaders" and the civil service complying. Patel described Ukrainian women and children fleeing war as a "security risk".
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
And the SNP alike. We need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use for both economic and environmental reasons. But - and its a big but - we're not about to immediately stop. Which means we need access to fossil fuels. And drilling it out of our own waters seems like a far better idea than piping / shipping it from elsewhere.
Opening up a new oil field is NOT contrary to Net Zero. We can continue to work towards the planned phased reduction in oil and gas use whilst being self-sufficient on what we are using. I don't see how people can't see this, its not a difficult concept.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
Here's the problem though: Net Zero even if a success, decades down the line, doesn't make anything "better" it just stops things getting worse. It's sacrifice for a very long term payoff of neutrality at best.
It's not hard to see how energy security and the cost of living will trump it. For it to get real traction it has to be make life cleaner, nicer, better, cheaper, more fun.. all the positive things the green movement hate.
If one accepts that there are real risks of climate change, then this feels like an opportunity to do something about it. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending it’s 1975 isn’t going to help.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
Can I put a 'half-like', please. As FS he clearly made matters worse.
Of course he did! But David was suggesting that he was blameless. Which is revisionist history at best.
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
The Homes for Ukraine scheme is mired in excessive bureaucracy with no thought given to the desperate situation facing Ukrainian families fleeing Russian aggression. This is a serious crisis, not online dating. Government needs to grip this urgently.
It absolutely doesn't work. Anybody trying to use it is wasting their time at the moment.
I've been scrolling up so didn't know what this comment related to. Could have been a great many things even presuming it was government related.
I haven't tried to use it. But the one person I know who has offered house space (actually an entire house) to Ukrainian refugees has had no problem in doing so.
Have the Ukranians arrived?
It actually made things worse for us because it cancelled an existing visa application and replaced it with... nothing.
I suspect it just means they got their name on a long list. Like most things Tories boast about it will come to nothing.
I think Boris is Chaotic Neutral and Putin is Neutral Evil.
Putin is a murderous dictator; Johnson is an arse. That's the difference between the two men.
I'm guessing there was a popular version of D&D with an "arse" scale on character alignment that I missed.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
So the scale goes directly from arse (Johnson) to evil genocidal autocratic terrorist (Putin). Is there nothing in between? Where on the dial do we place lazy, philandering, malevolent, duplicitous, rule- breaking, self-serving liars?
I'm not sure you've understood.
It's a two dimensional scale, with chaos/law on one axis and good/evil on the other.
Johnson is chaotic, but neither good nor evil.
Putin is evil and picks chaos or law to best suit himself.
Maybe not evil but far from good and good bit down the line for sure.
Morning all! Some of the debate has already got silly and spiky: 1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader 2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them 3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office 4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
Yes although there is still the possibility that "the good of Boris" means retiring early to earn sackfuls of cash, especially if 2023/4 polling looks unpromising.
Dan Hannan is a foundational member of the Speccie/Telegraph set that now runs the country.
"There is obviously a difference between identity politics and genocide," he writes in the Telegraph. "But it is, if you think about it, a difference of degree."
A bit embarrasing for an exponent of Identity Politics, for that is what Brexitism is.
Nope. Brexitism is about system of government not Identity Politics. It is about decision making being made as close to he people as possible. It is fundamentally about the nature of democracy.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
Can I put a 'half-like', please. As FS he clearly made matters worse.
Of course he did! But David was suggesting that he was blameless. Which is revisionist history at best.
He is blameless for the evil that Iran did. He is also incompetent, chaotic and incoherent. Like your excellent point on north sea oil this is not a difficult concept.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Not at current oil prices....
Uk electricity generation right now is 50% renewable. It could be far nearer 100%. There is no reason whatsoever to burn 20% gas right now.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Yes - the debate has absolutely changed and Labour being against self sufficient domestic energy production is going to be a vote loser
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
We can't even say that. The Iranians had an iron fist around her until we paid. There was no level to which they could upgrade their resolve.
You can say we didn't break out of being in lock-step with the US in our response. Where the debt we owed (but couldn't pay because of sanctions restrictions) got messily entangled with the sanctions on Iran for trying to build a bomb. But if you want to suggest that we should have cut Iran some slack on making their bomb to get her home earlier - well, I'd point you to our worries about Putin using the bomb.
I'm afraid this is the Roger Rabbit defence. "You mean to say you could have gotten out of those handcuffs at any time???" "No, not at any time, only when it's funny".
We could have negotiated a release. We not only chose not to, but strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her. And then war brakes out in Ukraine and we need oil. Hi Iran how are you? And just like that she is is released.
Boris Johnson didn't give a shit whether she rotted in jail or not. She was literally nothing to him.
Nasty people: I cut them out of my life. That means ceasing any contact socially and ignoring them and doing the same professionally, switching clients or employers by resignation (in extremis), if necessary, and being philosophical about it.
My revelation was that they are deeply damaged and unhappy people, and that they've got the problem - not me. I've got no desire to waste my time with them and expend energy working out how to deflect or deal with their negativity. Sure they are duplicitous but I learned to relax about two-facedness and comments behind my back, which I found was pretty common with such people, because other good people will do you justice and let you be seen even if they won't. So, nasty people can jog on as far as I'm concerned. Don't give them any oxygen at all.
That carries its own punishment for them and I found was very liberating for me.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Yes - the debate has absolutely changed and Labour being against self sufficient domestic energy production is going to be a vote loser
We could be self sufficient in renewables right now, instead we are burning gas which could be saved for cloudy days. Silly.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
The options are do the sustainable thing over the next few years (the tech is largely invented) or spend a couple of years setting up fracking and then doing the sustainable thing a couple of decades down the line.
Apart from giving the fossil fuel industry a last hurrah, I'm not sure what the advantage of increasing UK fossil fuel extraction is.
It eliminates Russia from our supply plus importing from elsewhere
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
LOL
I like to bring something to smile about from time to time.
Anyway, it is a glorious day here. I am off to Matterdale to have a walk round James Rebanks' farm, learn about all his various nature-improving schemes and look at cows. It should be interesting. He is a fine writer as well.
So I will leave you all to your interesting fights on here.
Beautiful day here too. Already walked the dog, now to the garden....
Very interesting, and I think, balanced article on todays Guardian site by Tulip Siddiq: I watched up close as ministers’ ignorance and incompetence kept Nazanin in Iran.
She gives credit to both Truss and Hunt, but is 'unimpressed' by both the FO generally, and by Johnson's grasp of the facts of the case, and of his handling of it.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Yes - the debate has absolutely changed and Labour being against self sufficient domestic energy production is going to be a vote loser
We could be self sufficient in renewables right now, instead we are burning gas which could be saved for cloudy days. Silly.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
Here's the problem though: Net Zero even if a success, decades down the line, doesn't make anything "better" it just stops things getting worse. It's sacrifice for a very long term payoff of neutrality at best.
It's not hard to see how energy security and the cost of living will trump it. For it to get real traction it has to be make life cleaner, nicer, better, cheaper, more fun.. all the positive things the green movement hate.
If one accepts that there are real risks of climate change, then this feels like an opportunity to do something about it. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending it’s 1975 isn’t going to help.
Not arguing for that. But the framing is all wrong.
No-one's going to vote for perpetual self-sacrifice and doom outside of a few fanatics.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
True, but it’s not unfair to blame Johnson for carelessly increasing the risk to her.
I believe it made zero difference. What did? Paying the money we owed. Now states should not act in this way. But it’s wrong to say that it was Johnson’s fault.
It is a massive leap of faith to suggest Johnson's Reuters intervention "made zero difference".
The Iran Government are/were a malign force. If Johnson through ignorant laziness gave them any opportunity to bolster their spurious case against Mrs Ratcliffe that is to his eternal shame.
This week the mildly impressive Ben Wallace took a phonecall purporting to be from Zelensky. After a few minutes he twigged it was an imposter having picked up a number of danger signals.
Can you imagine in his excitement the ignorant and lazy Johnson, who had forgotten to read "the Russian imposter warning signs rulebook" blundering on to fake Zelensky about what was the weather like outside his concealed bunker at Number 8 Boris Strasse? Oh, and by the way Zelenskey could look forward to a consignment of our entire stock of NLaws which "is on the train from Lviv to Kyiv as we speak".
The guy is dangerously incompetent. Get rid of him Conservative MPs.
Edit. And don't forget until recently Johnson could have taken the call on his own personal mobile.
Putin is evil. Boris... well, he's flawed. Deeply flawed. But he is not evil.
The evidence for your claim is weak.
You have a stupidly low threshold for evil then.
Evil is bombing civilians out of their own homeland. Stop fucking debasing the word. Twat.
We all know the real reason people on here think he's evil - he delivered the democratic wishes of the British people, then smashed Communism in this country, probably for a generation.
And they'll never forgive him for either or both of those.
He put Nazanin in prison for six years, and almost certainly arranged for the torture and murder of dozens of allies of this country in Afghanistan last year. Arguably that's not evil, just vain silly and lazy, like Ilse Koch. But whatever it is I don't want it governing my country. For reasons which have nothing to do with communism or brexit.
Thiis is genuinely demented. That poor woman, along with several others who got less publicity, was kidnapped by the state with whom she had dual citizenship and then held hostage until they got their ransom money. It is just absurd to blame anyone in this country for such evil or indeed anyone at all other than the perpetrators of the act.
Can we blame Boris for Iran taking her? No. Can we say he "put her in prison"? No. But we can say - with evidence - that he not only did nothing to try and free her both as foreign secretary then as PM, but several times was so ham-fisted and stupid that he strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her locked up.
I know you despise Johnson, but do you genuinely believe it made a jot of difference to the Iranians? They knew exactly what they were doing. She was entirely innocent of the charges and merely a pawn in the game. I don’t defend Johnson, at best he misspoke after not being bothered to ascertain the facts, but the only reason she was held was the debt, and only reason she is free is that the debt has been paid.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Has climate change gone away? Not sure that debate has changed. North Sea hydrocarbons are expensive.
Yes they are. But when the price of non-North Sea hydrocarbons is likely higher when you factor in the defence considerations it becomes a "lets just do it" consideration.
This wouldn't be a debate had we treated the North Sea reserves like Norway and all grown rich from the takings rather than gifting them to the private sector in exchange for enough cash to win elections in the 1980s. Same with the dash for gas disaster in the late 80s early 90s.
I think the “recent” vote on Trident was 18 July 2016: Lammy, Haigh, Nandy, Rayner & Stevens voted against votes.parliament.uk
A further 8 members of Labour’s front bench outside shadow cabinet voted against: Cadbury, Foxcroft, Griffith, Hamilton, Hussein, Shah, West & Zeichner
And a further 4 members of the shadow cabinet did not vote: Ashworth, Debbonaire, McMahon & Thornberry
Rachel Reeves demands Boris Johnson apologise to the Ukrainian people for his “utterly distasteful and insulting” comparison between their resistance against Russia and the Brexit vote.
It was tasteless, distasteful and deeply insulting to what Ukraine is going through. I said as much yesterday and I have no problem repeating it but lordy, are those determined to climb on the outrage bus at every opportunity tiresome.
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
She has only one answer - windfall tax - windfall tax - windfall tax
People in glass houses?.....
Who continually harps on about the vaccination vaccination vaccination?
Has anyone in the Tory party explained how the wife of a deputy finance Minister could have legitimately acquired so much money that she was able to give away £2 million (after tax)? I mean, they did do some due diligence didn't they on the source of the money, like everyone else in this country has to, yes?
LOL
I like to bring something to smile about from time to time.
Anyway, it is a glorious day here. I am off to Matterdale to have a walk round James Rebanks' farm, learn about all his various nature-improving schemes and look at cows. It should be interesting. He is a fine writer as well.
So I will leave you all to your interesting fights on here.
Beautiful day here too. Already walked the dog, now to the garden....
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Labour support oil and gas security from dictators, despots and dodgy regimes.
What a shock.
People wanted these green policies. They got them. They can pay the price of it and suck it up.
Conservatives also support oil and gas security from dictators, despots and dodgy regimes, which is presumably why Boris was in Saudi Arabia last week.
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Why? Investing in long term, sustainable solutions that don’t screw up the planet seems fairly non controversial.
I would respectively suggest you have not realised just how quickly this debate has changed, and the need to transition over the next 20 years will require us to develop our own oil and gas rather than getting it from Russia or importing it from other sources
Yes and No. There is a short term demand for additional sources of fossil fuels. If new UK sources can be brought on stream within two years and pay back within the next ten years, by all means develop these. But the need is an immediate and relatively short term one. Import the fuel if that's how you can meet that need.
Comments
I would so much rather hear what RR, who is far from daft, had to say about what the government can and should do about the cost of living crisis, the further pressure on our budget given the economic disruption of the war, what the government should do about public sector pay, how our energy policy should be changing in light of the Russian boycott, pretty much anything about the real and substantial problems we face rather than the witerrings of a witless PM.
People were calling Johnson "evil" here recently.
Arse is not evil.
That some of its causes are outside of his control is unlikely to help him much.
That’s not an attack on him, just a genuine question.
Bet you he doesn’t get invited back l
Crowley and Isaacs were both superb.
Chaotic Neutral
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it."
Neutral Evil
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
1) Boris IS - like Putin - amoral and lacking in basic political and societal norms. Which is bad if you end up a national leader
2) Boris is NOT like Putin a psychotic despot who sees human life as expendable for his goals. Boris is happy to tret certain groups poorly but thats not remotely the same as slaughtering them
3) Its valid to query if there are any intelligent Tories left when the party is continuously so dumb. On almost every subject and policy area if there's a way to fuck it up they are doing it. As has been pointed out there isn't even a grand policy goal being pursued by this stupid, its literally just clinging to office for the sake of being in office
4) The Brexit is Ukraine comment kills stone dead the claims that "Brexit is done". Brexit is not leaving the EU. Brexit clearly now is the culture war unicorn one size fits none chimera which they will been chasing forever like the end of the rainbow
As for a GE next year - why? Boris is in this for the good of Boris. Whilst the idiots in the Tory ranks leave him in place he will cling on and on until the last possible minute and claim he's doing so because the longer He is in office the greater We become.
If it is not, and you think that somebody else has a legitimate claim to Ukraine (or any part of it), you need to ask yourself whether they have always acted in a way that accords with that claim. The key document to help you here is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which states:
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
So Russia is in no position to whine about "spheres of influence"* because it voluntarily and explicitly renounced exactly that
Russia did not do this at the point of a baïonnette and nor had it just surrendered. The WW1 analogy is patently silly.
Now states should not act in this way. But it’s wrong to say that it was Johnson’s fault.
But it hardly answers the question.
I had no father, I am like no father;
I have no brother, I am like no brother;
And this word, "love", which greybeards call divine,
Be resident in men like one another
And not in me -- I am myself alone.
He and his cabinet need to get the boot ASAP, and if there aren't any other Tories who can govern competently then the whole lot of them need to go in a general election.
He could become the international ambassador for rebuilding Ukraine. Although - scrap that. Too many gorgeous leggy blondes in Ukraine...
Identity politics is a threat to the basic principle that every human life has equal worth. It attributes different worth and values to specific, largely socially constructed, self identifying groups of people. It doesn't take much foresight to see how this leads to a risk of genocide. I don't know for sure, but I think this would have been obvious to previous generations who were perhaps a bit wiser to the dangers of totalitarianism following the experience of the second world war and the USSR.
The embrace of identity politics in the UK is perhaps best understood as an alliance of two things: an incoming generation who have no experience of war and totalitarianism, and an older generation who are revulsed by Brexit.
Also note that Boris said at PMQs that a windfall tax would result in suppliers increasing prices. He is either completely ignorant of commodity pricing or being deliberately dishonest.
Although I haven't seen him for years I looked him up on (IIRC) Linked In a while ago, and that seems to be the case.
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
Anyway, it is a glorious day here. I am off to Matterdale to have a walk round James Rebanks' farm, learn about all his various nature-improving schemes and look at cows. It should be interesting. He is a fine writer as well.
So I will leave you all to your interesting fights on here.
Or who, in Moscow, toward the Czar,
With the demurest of footfalls
Over the Kremlin's pavement, bright
With serpentine and syenite,
Steps, with five other generals,
That simultaneously take snuff,
For each to have pretext enough
To kerchiefwise unfurl his sash
Which, softness' self, is yet the stuff
To hold fast where a steel chain snaps,
And leave the grand white neck no gash?
The UK has effectively closed any legal route to claim asylum. They are struggling to enable usable routes for limited claims only by Ukrainians.
I must get on, too.
So we can't move on because impossible promises have been made by the party in government and if it wants to stay in government it either needs to produce results or apportion the blame.
But the one person I know who has offered house space (actually an entire house) to Ukrainian refugees has had no problem in doing so.
Following my experience of post-Brexit passport control queues - which, contrary to my expectations following gleeful tales of doom, worked perfectly smoothly - I wonder if this is one of those occasions where a few bad experiences of beem generalised to the norm. Comparatively easy to do with an experiences ce relatively few people actually have.
In theory, he could hang on until a December 2024 dissolution / early 2025 election, but hanging on that blatantly and having a campaign straddling Christmas will just annoy everyone.
Late October 2024?
I wonder if it is based upon some wannabe aristo disdain for earned money.
You can say we didn't break out of being in lock-step with the US in our response. Where the debt we owed (but couldn't pay because of sanctions restrictions) got messily entangled with the sanctions on Iran for trying to build a bomb. But if you want to suggest that we should have cut Iran some slack on making their bomb to get her home earlier - well, I'd point you to our worries about Putin using the bomb.
Sunday ExpressGuardian Leader writer:1/Reading about Great Ormond Street Hospital cancellation of child psychiatry training event including gender-critical speakers (@HJoyceGender & @cwknews) it seems clearer & clearer that staff/student networks set up under auspices of Diversity & Inclusion are..
2/.. running a campaign against knowledge/ideas that don't fit with gender-activist, affirmation-only model of treatment for gender dysphoria.
Based in part on spurious comparison to homophobia -since being gay/ lesbian does not require medical treatment or surgery - ..
3/.. they block discussion & accuse anyone with different perspective of being a bigot. It's unconscionable. These are children's bodies & no one knows longterm outcomes for current, unprecedented cohort of adolescent/ young adult females with dysphoria.
https://twitter.com/SusannaRustin/status/1505464773902745600
It actually made things worse for us because it cancelled an existing visa application and replaced it with... nothing.
The rules may allow it, but only a government with a death wish would do it.
It's a two dimensional scale, with chaos/law on one axis and good/evil on the other.
Johnson is chaotic, but neither good nor evil.
Putin is evil and picks chaos or law to best suit himself.
Compare with nuclear coming on line in what - twenty years? If you can get through planning and find the tens of billions for subsidies, that is.
However, Starmer would be well advised to sup with them with a very long spoon.
It's not hard to see how energy security and the cost of living will trump it. For it to get real traction it has to be make life cleaner, nicer, better, cheaper, more fun.. all the positive things the green movement hate.
Opening up a new oil field is NOT contrary to Net Zero. We can continue to work towards the planned phased reduction in oil and gas use whilst being self-sufficient on what we are using. I don't see how people can't see this, its not a difficult concept.
Apart from giving the fossil fuel industry a last hurrah, I'm not sure what the advantage of increasing UK fossil fuel extraction is.
Compare with bombing a clearly marked school or theatre used as a shelter for women and children, destroyed with a precision weapon. Likening Boris to Putin in the evil stakes just destroys the credibility of the person making that comparison. Assuming they had any in the first place.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10632459/Boris-Johnson-faces-fury-comparing-Ukraines-fight-against-Russian-invaders-Brexit.html
We could have negotiated a release. We not only chose not to, but strengthened the resolve of the Iranians to keep her. And then war brakes out in Ukraine and we need oil. Hi Iran how are you? And just like that she is is released.
Boris Johnson didn't give a shit whether she rotted in jail or not. She was literally nothing to him.
My revelation was that they are deeply damaged and unhappy people, and that they've got the problem - not me. I've got no desire to waste my time with them and expend energy working out how to deflect or deal with their negativity. Sure they are duplicitous but I learned to relax about two-facedness and comments behind my back, which I found was pretty common with such people, because other good people will do you justice and let you be seen even if they won't. So, nasty people can jog on as far as I'm concerned. Don't give them any oxygen at all.
That carries its own punishment for them and I found was very liberating for me.
I feel sorry for them.
What a shock.
People wanted these green policies. They got them. They can pay the price of it and suck it up.
She gives credit to both Truss and Hunt, but is 'unimpressed' by both the FO generally, and by Johnson's grasp of the facts of the case, and of his handling of it.
No-one's going to vote for perpetual self-sacrifice and doom outside of a few fanatics.
The Iran Government are/were a malign force. If Johnson through ignorant laziness gave them any opportunity to bolster their spurious case against Mrs Ratcliffe that is to his eternal shame.
This week the mildly impressive Ben Wallace took a phonecall purporting to be from Zelensky. After a few minutes he twigged it was an imposter having picked up a number of danger signals.
Can you imagine in his excitement the ignorant and lazy Johnson, who had forgotten to read "the Russian imposter warning signs rulebook" blundering on to fake Zelensky about what was the weather like outside his concealed bunker at Number 8 Boris Strasse? Oh, and by the way Zelenskey could look forward to a consignment of our entire stock of NLaws which "is on the train from Lviv to Kyiv as we speak".
The guy is dangerously incompetent. Get rid of him Conservative MPs.
Edit. And don't forget until recently Johnson could have taken the call on his own personal mobile.
This wouldn't be a debate had we treated the North Sea reserves like Norway and all grown rich from the takings rather than gifting them to the private sector in exchange for enough cash to win elections in the 1980s. Same with the dash for gas disaster in the late 80s early 90s.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Fact-checking PM’s Blackpool speech yesterday: I think there are 5 https://conservatives.com/news/2022/spring-conference-2022--address-from-prime-minister-boris-johnson
I think the “recent” vote on Trident was 18 July 2016: Lammy, Haigh, Nandy, Rayner & Stevens voted against
votes.parliament.uk
A further 8 members of Labour’s front bench outside shadow cabinet voted against: Cadbury, Foxcroft, Griffith, Hamilton, Hussein, Shah, West & Zeichner
And a further 4 members of the shadow cabinet did not vote: Ashworth, Debbonaire, McMahon & Thornberry
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1505477379367608321
Who continually harps on about the vaccination vaccination vaccination?