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.
I believe the apt phrase is "only Nixon could go to China". We *could* have done something to try and release her. Not only did we not do, your pal Boris made them more determined to keep her. The idea that they would release only for cash is silly - the Iranians do realpolitik as much as everyone else does.
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
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.
What really ticks me off is that at a time when we are working with our EU neighbours to try to help Ukraine as best we can Johnson undermines it because he can't resist a cheap shot grandstanding o the party faithful.
He needs to think before he opens his stupid mouth but we should all know by now that there is no chance of that happening. He's unfit for office but then even most Tories have known that for a long time but still do nothing about it.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
Rachel Reeves indicates they will not support North Sea oil and gas production
And there in one comment is labour's real problem
I don't see how people can't see this, its not a difficult concept.
Many politicians have fallen into the trap of "absolutes" making "the best" the enemy of "the good" - the whole COVID pandemic is littered with them - sadly "it's a bit more complicated than that" doesn't fit in a soundbite or a tweet. Politicians are talking to themselves and their supporters, rather than voters.
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...
Two other related markets I'm keeping an eye on are inflation and interest rates.
Smarkets currently have odds on CPI inflation hitting 7.5% by July. The odds on this don't really attract me.
I'm looking to see if I can get odds on 10% CPI by end of the year. That's more controversial but there's a hell of a lot of surge upstream. Double-digit inflation would really be a meme changer I suspect. I think you have to go back to 1981 for the last time?
The Express had a 9.5% guesstimate on its front page a couple of weeks ago.
Music was great in the 70s. The economy? Not so much.
The fuel crisis of 1973 and the one following the Iranian revolution of 1979 were both pretty brutal economically. Those of us old enough to remember what real inflation was like are not keen to see it return.
It isn't a straight repeat though. We have far less of a manufacturing economy, we have very weak private sector Trade Unions, a much older population, and we have no politicians who support living within our means. It is quite a different cocktail.
Despite inflation, war, the worst consumer confidence for decades, visible stagflation, China in lockdown etc my equity portfolio is up quite a bit this week. Quite what I should do with it is unclear. The 1973 fuel crisis led to a severe bear market. Are we there again? The 1979 one led to a very long bull market.
To add to your list: low unemployment. Employers are finding it fiendishly difficult to recruit.
All in all it is a weird cocktail. Of such scenarios are economics textbooks rewritten, and fortunes made… and lost.
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.
The conservatives are looking to use our resources off the North Sea, labour are saying they will oppose 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.
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.
1. We absolutely should invest heavily in renewables - both for our own usage and as something to be a high-tech export. But that will take time. 2. Even once we set up BRITWIND and BRITTIDE and BRITSUN to flog our leading edge solutions we will still need oil and gas. So why not burn our own instead of someone else's? And our neighbours are in the same boat. So we help remove their reliance on imports.
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.
The conservatives are looking to use our resources off the North Sea, labour are saying they will oppose it.
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.
Impressed that Truss gave them Dorneywood to stay at to keep the press away in the first few days
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.
I agree but it is a very interesting question. Clearly a person who deliberately kills a person is more evil than a person who causes death due to their in action. However I do get more angry with the latter.
There is no point in getting angry with the Putins and the Hitlers of this world. We just need to stop them. Same for serial killers. However people who stand by and allow stuff to happen or cover it up eg NHS executive who preside over and cover up hospital deaths due to their incompetence make me much angrier.
That could be just me. I'm angrier at those who fail to act. The evil are evil. They just have to be stopped.
A rag-bag of things from the Sunday Times big read on P&O:
- P&O shore staff, who do checkins (not affected by the layoffs) are a mixture of old-contract employees on £30k and new-contract employees on minimum wage. - P&O has a reputation in the industry for high overheads. - Other industry figures are aghast at the actions of P&O, and think its CEO incompetent. - Irish ferries, having pulled the same stunt in 2005, are much more competitive. - Irish ferries has started on the Uk-Europe route recently, and is winning. One ship now, another to come. - The demise of the 'landbridge' is much exaggerated: Irish ferries now being able to operate both legs of it is another reason for their recent success. - P&O Offering a bonus of £20k to existing ship employees if they sign up to the new contract. - The Times has found the original advert for the strikebreakers, in Cyrillic. $4000 for two weeks work - supports the notion that they are not intended to be permanent so they want the existing workforce back on less money.
"The war in Ukraine has reached a stalemate after more than three weeks of fighting, with Russia making only marginal gains and increasingly targeting civilians, according to analysts and U.S. officials.
“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research institute, said in an analysis. Russians do not have the manpower or the equipment to seize Kyiv, the capital, or other major cities like Kharkiv and Odessa, the study concluded."
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
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.
Yes it makes a difference. The Iranians do politics like anyone else. They want to come back out from the cold and start selling oil, they had something we wanted. So we could have acted as an intelligent player and instead we sent the Boris.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
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.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
If we had an open door to refugees then the people smugglers would have no business.
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 insecurity relying on our needs 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.
You do realise renewables are vastly cheaper than fossil fuels right now? The immediate problem is there aren't enough of them yet.
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
On refugees, it occasionally crosses my mind that any delays may not be just due to the status of Ukrainians and the (theoretical) risk they represent, but also to the (theoretical) risk presented by host 'families'.
Most of the refugees are currently women, children and the elderly, I presume. Obviously the vast majority in the UK who wish to host refugees do so from noble intentions, but is it possible that there is a risk that some hosts - a very small minority, granted - take it upon themselves to host refugees with the intention of sexually and/or economically exploiting them? What safeguards are in place to protect refugees; because, sadly, some are needed? The government is unlikely to say out loud that "we have to check that host families are safe". I'm curious as to how other European nations are assessing this risk and ensuring that hosts are 'safe'.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
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
A rag-bag of things from the Sunday Times big read on P&O:
- P&O shore staff, who do checkins (not affected by the layoffs) are a mixture of old-contract employees on £30k and new-contract employees on minimum wage. - P&O has a reputation in the industry for high overheads. - Other industry figures are aghast at the actions of P&O, and think its CEO incompetent. - Irish ferries, having pulled the same stunt in 2005, are much more competitive. - Irish ferries has started on the Uk-Europe route recently, and is winning. One ship now, another to come. - The demise of the 'landbridge' is much exaggerated: Irish ferries now being able to operate both legs of it is another reason for their recent success. - P&O Offering a bonus of £20k to existing ship employees if they sign up to the new contract. - The Times has found the original advert for the strikebreakers, in Cyrillic. $4000 for two weeks work - supports the notion that they are not intended to be permanent so they want the existing workforce back on less money.
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?
She worked for JP Morgan and ABN… was a VC investor… her husband fled Russia nearly 20 years ago. At some point it’s not enough to say “she’s Russian therefore she’s bad”.
Although I’d like to know more about the kerimov link
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
I am not gverned by the US State Department. Not overtly anyway.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
If we had an open door to refugees then the people smugglers would have no business.
There's no such thing as an open door to refugees, there's only such a thing as an open door.
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.
Wonder why they don't allow democracy in UK, oh it is so they can get all that Scottish oil and gas that was supposed to have ran out years ago. Surprise surprise from ran out to desperately needed in one fell swoop.
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.
I believe the apt phrase is "only Nixon could go to China". We *could* have done something to try and release her. Not only did we not do, your pal Boris made them more determined to keep her. The idea that they would release only for cash is silly - the Iranians do realpolitik as much as everyone else does.
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
This is getting really boring but I will try one last time. What Iran wanted was the slackening of the sanctions regime , The UK was a lot more relaxed about this than the US who were (a) very worried about Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US and (b) the negative consequences of Trump's idiotic withdrawal from the agreements that had been negotiated by Obama. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place and there was nothing we could do. This is the price of being a middle sized power rather than a great power.
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
If we had an open door to refugees then the people smugglers would have no business.
The report was relating to the Polish border crossing not specifically those who want to come to the UK
Indeed there are fewer than thought as most want to stay near to Ukraine
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
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.
LOL, bet you were pissing yourself laughing as you typed that.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
and presumably the inflation bulge makes things worse.
There are bad times just around the corner, and the outlook's absolutely vile.
After 14 years in power, the Conservatives have nowhere left to run.
When Russia invaded I said that 2 things were now nailed on: 1. Johnson will lead the Conservatives into the next GE 2. Johnson will lead the Conservatives into defeat at the next GE
Subsequent events, big and small, have only reinforced my judgement. I have been absent from PB for a while, but I’d just like to say how repulsive I find the behaviour of P&O. This is what happens to ordinary, well-qualified, hard-working people when dictatorships like Russia, China and the Gulf states control vast chunks of the economy. Basic concepts like caring for the people in your company go straight out the window. A horrific scandal in industrial relations and in seafaring history. And predictably… very predictably… the Tories are sitting on their hands. Shame on all of you!
A rag-bag of things from the Sunday Times big read on P&O:
- P&O shore staff, who do checkins (not affected by the layoffs) are a mixture of old-contract employees on £30k and new-contract employees on minimum wage. - P&O has a reputation in the industry for high overheads. - Other industry figures are aghast at the actions of P&O, and think its CEO incompetent. - Irish ferries, having pulled the same stunt in 2005, are much more competitive. - Irish ferries has started on the Uk-Europe route recently, and is winning. One ship now, another to come. - The demise of the 'landbridge' is much exaggerated: Irish ferries now being able to operate both legs of it is another reason for their recent success. - P&O Offering a bonus of £20k to existing ship employees if they sign up to the new contract. - The Times has found the original advert for the strikebreakers, in Cyrillic. $4000 for two weeks work - supports the notion that they are not intended to be permanent so they want the existing workforce back on less 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.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
I am not gverned by the US State Department. Not overtly anyway.
You didn't participate in an election that they won I think you mean.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
Actually not true. I also posted about this quite recently quoting Orla Guerin saying how she was actually in the room when the deal to return the £400 million was about to be signed and an message came from the US saying it was in breach of sanctions and must not be signed.
Of course it would be reasonable to say that any respectable Government would tell the US to take a walk and sign anyway.
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
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
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
magically the Scottish oil and gas that had ran out and was worthless has suddenly reappeared and london now need to pillage Scotland yet again whilst sneering as ever no doubt.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
Actually not true. I also posted about this quite recently quoting Orla Guerin saying how she was actually in the room when the deal to return the £400 million was about to be signed and an message came from the US saying it was in breach of sanctions and must not be signed.
Of course it would be reasonable to say that any respectable Government would tell the US to take a walk and sign anyway.
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.
I believe the apt phrase is "only Nixon could go to China". We *could* have done something to try and release her. Not only did we not do, your pal Boris made them more determined to keep her. The idea that they would release only for cash is silly - the Iranians do realpolitik as much as everyone else does.
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
This is getting really boring but I will try one last time. What Iran wanted was the slackening of the sanctions regime , The UK was a lot more relaxed about this than the US who were (a) very worried about Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US and (b) the negative consequences of Trump's idiotic withdrawal from the agreements that had been negotiated by Obama. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place and there was nothing we could do. This is the price of being a middle sized power rather than a great power.
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
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
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
There is no scale of "evil" on which Boris registers. To do so is to debase "evil".
No, I haven't missed the point. Your doing so makes you a pillock.
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.
I believe the apt phrase is "only Nixon could go to China". We *could* have done something to try and release her. Not only did we not do, your pal Boris made them more determined to keep her. The idea that they would release only for cash is silly - the Iranians do realpolitik as much as everyone else does.
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
This is getting really boring but I will try one last time. What Iran wanted was the slackening of the sanctions regime , The UK was a lot more relaxed about this than the US who were (a) very worried about Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US and (b) the negative consequences of Trump's idiotic withdrawal from the agreements that had been negotiated by Obama. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place and there was nothing we could do. This is the price of being a middle sized power rather than a great power.
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
US poodles as ever, they say jump and UK says "how high"
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.
I agree but it is a very interesting question. Clearly a person who deliberately kills a person is more evil than a person who causes death due to their in action. However I do get more angry with the latter.
There is no point in getting angry with the Putins and the Hitlers of this world. We just need to stop them. Same for serial killers. However people who stand by and allow stuff to happen or cover it up eg NHS executive who preside over and cover up hospital deaths due to their incompetence make me much angrier.
That could be just me. I'm angrier at those who fail to act. The evil are evil. They just have to be stopped.
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
magically the Scottish oil and gas that had ran out and was worthless has suddenly reappeared and london now need to pillage Scotland yet again whilst sneering as ever no doubt.
We could do the whole Matrix thing and power the whole nation off actual scotsmen.
Or, we already do. Have you ever had a dream, malcolm, that you seemed so sure it was real? But if you were unable to wake up from that dream, how would you tell the difference between the dream world & the real world?
Fuck that plot point annoys me with the stupidity of the physics. Ruins the film when they could so easily have pinched an idea from Hyperion, and had the machines cocooning the humans so as to use their brains as extra computing power.
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 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 insecurity relying on our needs 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.
You do realise renewables are vastly cheaper than fossil fuels right now? The immediate problem is there aren't enough of them yet.
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
Fair enough.
Point is, "green policies" is good, not just for the planet but also for energy security. Fossil fuels are still needed in the medium term, and we have supplies of those, not just from Russia.
The question is what to do differently in that short to medium term because of the Russia issue? Going hell for leather on the "green policies" should be objective number 1.
Additional short term sources should be brought on if possible. But they have to be useful. ie they can be brought on stream in the next one or two years and can pay back in a relatively short period of time, may be with a subsidy element. Additional sources won't be needed beyond ten years time or so. Renewables will provide most of our energy if we have done it properly, while existing fossil fuel sources can fill in the rest.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
It was a callous decision that has doubtless cost many Ukrainian lives.
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?
I would add that he would only hang on that long if he were behind in the polls - and having Christmas in the middle of the campaign would make it harder to turn it around
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
I don't think the UK can be self-sufficient. I think we can produce about half of our own gas requirements. The options are: reduce usage significantly, or import. Most European countries are in the same boat.
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 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
magically the Scottish oil and gas that had ran out and was worthless has suddenly reappeared and london now need to pillage Scotland yet again whilst sneering as ever no doubt.
We could do the whole Matrix thing and power the whole nation off actual scotsmen.
Or, we already do. Have you ever had a dream, malcolm, that you seemed so sure it was real? But if you were unable to wake up from that dream, how would you tell the difference between the dream world & the real world?
Fuck that plot point annoys me with the stupidity of the physics. Ruins the film when they could so easily have pinched an idea from Hyperion, and had the machines cocooning the humans so as to use their brains as extra computing power.
Well most of it is run off Scottish windpower, Scottish oil and gas so be little different to what it is now. These fcukwits have ranted for years about how there was no oil left and as if by magic it all appears again, definitely a fantasy world for sure.
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 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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
I don't think the UK can be self-sufficient. I think we can produce about half of our own gas requirements. The options are: reduce usage significantly, or import. Most European countries are in the same boat.
No we could produce all our own gas requirements. What stops us doing so is market price vs cost - too low and it is not worth companies doing it - and Government policy.
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
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
Neil Hauer @NeilPHauer · 14h Something I've noticed over the past week or so here: almost every Ukrainian I spoke to has made it clear that they blame not only Putin, but the average Russian as much (or more) for this war. The view is: we overthrew our corrupt government, and they accept their murderous one.
The amount of animosity from the average Ukrainian towards the average Russian is already huge and growing more with every single new airstrike, every new civilian death. The effects of this war will last for generations.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
There is no scale of "evil" on which Boris registers. To do so is to debase "evil".
No, I haven't missed the point. Your doing so makes you a pillock.
So we know Eeevul because it lives in a hollowed out volcano with a white cat.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
If we had an open door to refugees then the people smugglers would have no business.
There's no such thing as an open door to refugees, there's only such a thing as an open door.
Really? Show a Ukrainian passport at border control and in you come. Why don't border force staff not have the ability to treat Ukrainian women and children differently in your view?
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
It was a callous decision that has doubtless cost many Ukrainian lives.
Why so different from Johnson in Afghanistan?
I strongly doubt that claim. You think German arms exports will have turned this around? Do you think present access to munitions has been the limiting factor in the ability of the Ukrainian army to mount a defence? I don't.
Also, I need to underscore this because I don't think you've quite understood it: Germany has a blanket ban on arms exports to conflict zones for which they have made an exception in supplying Ukraine. The implication in your post is that Germany has singled out Ukraine to not be supplied whereas as the opposite is now much closer to the truth.
Previous: blanket ban Now: blanket ban with pro-Ukraine exception.
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
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 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 insecurity relying on our needs 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.
You do realise renewables are vastly cheaper than fossil fuels right now? The immediate problem is there aren't enough of them yet.
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
Fair enough.
Point is, "green policies" is good, not just for the planet but also for energy security. Fossil fuels are still needed in the medium term, and we have supplies of those, not just from Russia.
The question is what to do differently in that short to medium term because of the Russia issue? Going hell for leather on the "green policies" should be objective number 1.
Additional short term sources should be brought on if possible. But they have to be useful. ie they can be brought on stream in the next one or two years and can pay back in a relatively short period of time, may be with a subsidy element. Additional sources won't be needed beyond ten years time or so. Renewables will provide most of our energy if we have done it properly, while existing fossil fuel sources can fill in the rest.
Tldr. The problem is here and now but it's not immediately soluble; the problem goes away in the medium term. We're probably going to see both high fossil fuel prices and continuing purchases of Russian fossil fuel over the next few years.
I find the concept of evil itself to be inaccurate, unhelpful and rooted in superstition.
Really? I find it a useful concept when thinking about how people treat others as a means to an end at scale and with such callous disregard for their suffering that it would probably be less effort to treat them better. Such people are what I'd call evil. There's no need to delve into the pantheon or believe in anything woo to see things that way.
"The war in Ukraine has reached a stalemate after more than three weeks of fighting, with Russia making only marginal gains and increasingly targeting civilians, according to analysts and U.S. officials.
“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research institute, said in an analysis. Russians do not have the manpower or the equipment to seize Kyiv, the capital, or other major cities like Kharkiv and Odessa, the study concluded."
NY Times
Looks like Russia needs a pause for now. Are the Ukrainians able to push back at this moment?
"Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşolοglu told the Hürriyet newspaper today that Russia and Ukraine were approaching an agreement on "critical" issues and had almost agreed on certain issues.''
I find the concept of evil itself to be inaccurate, unhelpful and rooted in superstition.
I have consulted with the gods, my witch doctor, priest and shaman and they all thoroughly disagree it has anything to do with superstition. I hope they protect me from evil, touch wood.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
There is no scale of "evil" on which Boris registers. To do so is to debase "evil".
No, I haven't missed the point. Your doing so makes you a pillock.
So we know Eeevul because it lives in a hollowed out volcano with a white cat.
PS Derniere maitresse de milord Byron. LOL.
If you can't see that Putin is evil and Boris is not, you have very limited critical faculties.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
It was a callous decision that has doubtless cost many Ukrainian lives.
Why so different from Johnson in Afghanistan?
I strongly doubt that claim. You think German arms exports will have turned this around? Do you think present access to munitions has been the limiting factor in the ability of the Ukrainian army to mount a defence? I don't.
Also, I need to underscore this because I don't think you've quite understood it: Germany has a blanket ban on arms exports to conflict zones for which they have made an exception in supplying Ukraine. The implication in your post is that Germany has singled out Ukraine to not be supplied whereas as the opposite is now much closer to the truth.
Previous: blanket ban Now: blanket ban with pro-Ukraine exception.
The Germans were laughing at the Ukrainians because it would all be over in 48 hours FFS.
They've been shamed into helping out. There's nothing noble in it.
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.
I believe the apt phrase is "only Nixon could go to China". We *could* have done something to try and release her. Not only did we not do, your pal Boris made them more determined to keep her. The idea that they would release only for cash is silly - the Iranians do realpolitik as much as everyone else does.
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
This is getting really boring but I will try one last time. What Iran wanted was the slackening of the sanctions regime , The UK was a lot more relaxed about this than the US who were (a) very worried about Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US and (b) the negative consequences of Trump's idiotic withdrawal from the agreements that had been negotiated by Obama. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place and there was nothing we could do. This is the price of being a middle sized power rather than a great power.
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
I entirely agree with your final paragraph - the realpolitik change in circumstance is why she is free. Which is exactly my Nixon going to China reference. You have to take the steps to open up these "sudden" decisions. Instead Boris helped weld the door shut. He really isn't the victim here no matter how many times you post this "what could he have done" narrative.
He could have TRIED. He could have CARED. He could have used the diplomatic force of HMG and the FCO to work behind the scenes on the diplomacy needed to get us here. He didn't, because he didn't care, because she is nothing to him. That's the reality you are defending. Turns out Truss and Hunt did what you said was impossible for Boris to do.
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
magically the Scottish oil and gas that had ran out and was worthless has suddenly reappeared and london now need to pillage Scotland yet again whilst sneering as ever no doubt.
We could do the whole Matrix thing and power the whole nation off actual scotsmen.
Or, we already do. Have you ever had a dream, malcolm, that you seemed so sure it was real? But if you were unable to wake up from that dream, how would you tell the difference between the dream world & the real world?
Fuck that plot point annoys me with the stupidity of the physics. Ruins the film when they could so easily have pinched an idea from Hyperion, and had the machines cocooning the humans so as to use their brains as extra computing power.
Well most of it is run off Scottish windpower, Scottish oil and gas so be little different to what it is now. These fcukwits have ranted for years about how there was no oil left and as if by magic it all appears again, definitely a fantasy world for sure.
You kindly provide much of the Scottish wind power, for which we are thankful.
I have never said there was none left, but it's profitability did dive because Putin and the Saudis got in a price battle (forgive me if I am wrong) and drove the price down (blissful days). It is now likely to be more profitable again - good times for Aberdeen.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
There is no scale of "evil" on which Boris registers. To do so is to debase "evil".
No, I haven't missed the point. Your doing so makes you a pillock.
So we know Eeevul because it lives in a hollowed out volcano with a white cat.
PS Derniere maitresse de milord Byron. LOL.
If you can't see that Putin is evil and Boris is not, you have very limited critical faculties.
For my money, extreme levels of psychological dysfunction can lead to something commensurate with evil. Putin's level of dysfunction is clearly greater than Johnson's.
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.
The number of angry posts on PB about Boris Johnson's blabbery mouth possibly extending Ratcliffe's time in jail - gosh, it must be hundreds, and evidently still counting.
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
We can do something about the British FS.
We can do very little about the US State Dept.
When we had allies we could. Do the thing that is directly contrary to America's interests and surprisingly enough we get sidelined.
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
Because that's not actually the problem. The problem is finding alternative supplies to Russian oil and gas by next winter.
This is getting really boring but I will try one last time. What Iran wanted was the slackening of the sanctions regime , The UK was a lot more relaxed about this than the US who were (a) very worried about Israel and the Jewish lobby in the US and (b) the negative consequences of Trump's idiotic withdrawal from the agreements that had been negotiated by Obama. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place and there was nothing we could do. This is the price of being a middle sized power rather than a great power.
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
Like you (and most governments, come to that) I'm pretty pragmatic about realpolitik and I think you're right that our policies on this have been driven partly by the perceived need to be broadly in line with the US. Whether that's a good thing in itself is debatable - most of us are I think broadly OK with it in dangerous times, with Biden pretty sensible and Putin proving scarily unpredictable. If we turn out to be tied to Mr Trump in a couple of years, some loosening will definitely be in our interest. I'd argue that France gets it about right - a loyal member of NATO, but willing to be distinctively different when it wants to be.
Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder When Putin says that there is no Ukrainian nation and no Ukrainian state, he means that he intends to destroy the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian state. Everyone gets that, right? #Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #UkraineUnderAttack
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 insecurity relying on our needs 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.
You do realise renewables are vastly cheaper than fossil fuels right now? The immediate problem is there aren't enough of them yet.
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
Fair enough.
Point is, "green policies" is good, not just for the planet but also for energy security. Fossil fuels are still needed in the medium term, and we have supplies of those, not just from Russia.
The question is what to do differently in that short to medium term because of the Russia issue? Going hell for leather on the "green policies" should be objective number 1.
Additional short term sources should be brought on if possible. But they have to be useful. ie they can be brought on stream in the next one or two years and can pay back in a relatively short period of time, may be with a subsidy element. Additional sources won't be needed beyond ten years time or so. Renewables will provide most of our energy if we have done it properly, while existing fossil fuel sources can fill in the rest.
But we have access to our own fossil fuels and should exploit that and allow private companies to do so. Going hell for leather on renewables as we are makes sense but green policies aren’t just the sensible ones like that it’s stopping us from exploiting these reserves. Some green initiatives are fine others are just crazy.
As I say, how many gas boilers need changing out. Millions. It will take many years. Heat pumps are not very good and there are something like 50,000 produced annually in the U.K.
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
I don't think the UK can be self-sufficient. I think we can produce about half of our own gas requirements. The options are: reduce usage significantly, or import. Most European countries are in the same boat.
No we could produce all our own gas requirements. What stops us doing so is market price vs cost - too low and it is not worth companies doing it - and Government policy.
So have I misunderstood the self-sufficiency index then? Can you explain it to me, because I thought it was the ratio of potential production and usage.
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
I didn't realise that all those Labour mps voted against Trident - not a good look
Pity it is a lie, you are easily taken in by Tory propaganda G.
Why is John Rentoul lying in his fact check?
WTF are you wittering about and who the F*** is John Rentoul
You clearly don't bother reading what you're replying to.
Click on "show previous quotes" and give reading it a go.
read even more rubbish, no thanks, time is short. John Rentoul is a fanny though. PS: There i snothing that could ever happen to make G not believe in the sanctity and worship of the Tories. If the Tories nuked Wales he would agree it was necessary and good for the country.
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
Because that's not actually the problem. The problem is finding alternative supplies to Russian oil and gas by next winter.
That’s the immediate problem, but in the short to medium term we should exploit our own resources.
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 insecurity relying on our needs 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.
You do realise renewables are vastly cheaper than fossil fuels right now? The immediate problem is there aren't enough of them yet.
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
Fair enough.
Point is, "green policies" is good, not just for the planet but also for energy security. Fossil fuels are still needed in the medium term, and we have supplies of those, not just from Russia.
The question is what to do differently in that short to medium term because of the Russia issue? Going hell for leather on the "green policies" should be objective number 1.
Additional short term sources should be brought on if possible. But they have to be useful. ie they can be brought on stream in the next one or two years and can pay back in a relatively short period of time, may be with a subsidy element. Additional sources won't be needed beyond ten years time or so. Renewables will provide most of our energy if we have done it properly, while existing fossil fuel sources can fill in the rest.
We are already going hell for leather on green policies. The limits on building wind farms have almost nothing to do with Government policy and everything to do with the basic practicalities and time needed to build them. I already posted last week that we have seen one of the largest reductions in energy usage of any advanced country and now use the same amount of energy for domestic purposes as we did in the late 70s. Our overall energy consumption across all sectors combined in the UK is at the same level as it was in 1970 - and that is in spite of increases in population and GDP growth.
The idea that we could reasonably do more, faster, is not viable.
Neil Hauer @NeilPHauer · 14h Something I've noticed over the past week or so here: almost every Ukrainian I spoke to has made it clear that they blame not only Putin, but the average Russian as much (or more) for this war. The view is: we overthrew our corrupt government, and they accept their murderous one.
The amount of animosity from the average Ukrainian towards the average Russian is already huge and growing more with every single new airstrike, every new civilian death. The effects of this war will last for generations.
I think there is an element of truth in that, not that Russians approve of, or like Putin, but there is/was a degree of complicity in accepting Putin's rule, when instead Russia might have changed direction, because the Russian people broadly approved of Putin stabilising the economy and saw their living standards rise as a result. The Russian people are not ignorant, they know what Putin is and how he rules, even if they do not know the details, they would certainly recognise Putin and his ilk. God knows they have enough similar leaders from history to compare with Putin.
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.
LOL, bet you were pissing yourself laughing as you typed that.
No I reserve that for when I read your ignorant posts.
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".
I do not support Patel in any shape or form but the BBC did a report from the Polish border which is now suffering a crisis with the infiltration of people smugglers taking advantage of the misery
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
If we had an open door to refugees then the people smugglers would have no business.
There's no such thing as an open door to refugees, there's only such a thing as an open door.
Really? Show a Ukrainian passport at border control and in you come. Why don't border force staff not have the ability to treat Ukrainian women and children differently in your view?
That's not an open door to all refugees then, it's an open door to Ukrainian passport-holders. The former concept is what I thought you meant. I was saying it's impossible because you can't tell which humans are refugees and which are just people.
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.
Why import when we can be self sufficient
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
I don't think the UK can be self-sufficient. I think we can produce about half of our own gas requirements. The options are: reduce usage significantly, or import. Most European countries are in the same boat.
The dash for gas - the Thatcherite "lets stuff the miners and stuff the shareholders pockets" project to burn off north sea gas reserves for profit as quickly as possible - was a strategic disaster.
Here and now we need gas and you're right we are reliant on imports. But we could produce more oil and gas and even as we move towards net zero we should do. Better to be burning our own hydrocarbons at the end than someone else's. It was the same with coal - utterly stupid to shut down mines with stacks of cheap coal and then ship it half way round the world. As if coal wasn't dirty enough already.
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
The Inuit have 27 different words for snow.
They recognise there is a difference between the icky grey slushy slightly melted snow underfoot and the harsh icefilled snow storm from the northern waste that will kill you in minutes if you are not careful.
Should we not recognise the difference between Boris and Putin similarly?
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
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.
Yes. I never did that, though. I said a. Putin is evil b. johnson is evil c. Putin is more evil than johnson. So that rather misses the point.
How evil is modern Germany for its arms embargo on Ukraine?
Less evil than you suspect given that it's a general ban on sending lethal weapons to conflict zones, and they have made an exception in this case.
It was a callous decision that has doubtless cost many Ukrainian lives.
Why so different from Johnson in Afghanistan?
I strongly doubt that claim. You think German arms exports will have turned this around? Do you think present access to munitions has been the limiting factor in the ability of the Ukrainian army to mount a defence? I don't.
Also, I need to underscore this because I don't think you've quite understood it: Germany has a blanket ban on arms exports to conflict zones for which they have made an exception in supplying Ukraine. The implication in your post is that Germany has singled out Ukraine to not be supplied whereas as the opposite is now much closer to the truth.
Previous: blanket ban Now: blanket ban with pro-Ukraine exception.
The Germans were laughing at the Ukrainians because it would all be over in 48 hours FFS.
They've been shamed into helping out. There's nothing noble in it.
I didn't say there was anything noble, I'm trying to correct your implication that Germany maliciously singled out Ukraine when in reality they first adhered to a blanket ban, then changed to making an exception in Ukraine's favour. I don't want to interfere with your moral judgements but it's better if they aren't based on a misunderstanding of the basic facts.
Comments
Simple truth is that she was not worth it for Boris No profit. No gain. No donations. So he didn't care.
He needs to think before he opens his stupid mouth but we should all know by now that there is no chance of that happening. He's unfit for office but then even most Tories have known that for a long time but still do nothing about it.
It was very alarming and is something that should not be lightly dismissed
All in all it is a weird cocktail. Of such scenarios are economics textbooks rewritten, and fortunes made… and lost.
But, yes, whataboutery to ignore the point.
2. Even once we set up BRITWIND and BRITTIDE and BRITSUN to flog our leading edge solutions we will still need oil and gas. So why not burn our own instead of someone else's? And our neighbours are in the same boat. So we help remove their reliance on imports.
There is no point in getting angry with the Putins and the Hitlers of this world. We just need to stop them. Same for serial killers. However people who stand by and allow stuff to happen or cover it up eg NHS executive who preside over and cover up hospital deaths due to their incompetence make me much angrier.
That could be just me. I'm angrier at those who fail to act. The evil are evil. They just have to be stopped.
- P&O shore staff, who do checkins (not affected by the layoffs) are a mixture of old-contract employees on £30k and new-contract employees on minimum wage.
- P&O has a reputation in the industry for high overheads.
- Other industry figures are aghast at the actions of P&O, and think its CEO incompetent.
- Irish ferries, having pulled the same stunt in 2005, are much more competitive.
- Irish ferries has started on the Uk-Europe route recently, and is winning. One ship now, another to come.
- The demise of the 'landbridge' is much exaggerated: Irish ferries now being able to operate both legs of it is another reason for their recent success.
- P&O Offering a bonus of £20k to existing ship employees if they sign up to the new contract.
- The Times has found the original advert for the strikebreakers, in Cyrillic. $4000 for two weeks work - supports the notion that they are not intended to be permanent so they want the existing workforce back on less money.
“Ukrainian forces have defeated the initial Russian campaign of this war,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based research institute, said in an analysis. Russians do not have the manpower or the equipment to seize Kyiv, the capital, or other major cities like Kharkiv and Odessa, the study concluded."
NY Times
The number of angry posts on PB about the US State Department *definitely* extending Ratcliffe's time in jail by forbidding the UK Foreign Office from buying her freedom 6 months ago - 1. Mine.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/20/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-release-campaign-tulip-saddiq
I have made the same point in past discussions here on the issue. so I’m well aware. We have to deal with the here and now as well as the medium to long term. I’m fully on board with the transition to renewables but we are in the transition phase. We still need oil and gas for domestic energy.
How many gas boilers need replacing for a start.
Without oil and gas we cannot make the transition. We also need the by products from oil and gas and will do for the foreseeable.
Most of the refugees are currently women, children and the elderly, I presume. Obviously the vast majority in the UK who wish to host refugees do so from noble intentions, but is it possible that there is a risk that some hosts - a very small minority, granted - take it upon themselves to host refugees with the intention of sexually and/or economically exploiting them? What safeguards are in place to protect refugees; because, sadly, some are needed? The government is unlikely to say out loud that "we have to check that host families are safe". I'm curious as to how other European nations are assessing this risk and ensuring that hosts are 'safe'.
How much of the cost of alternative energy production required when the wind isn't blowing should be attributed to renewables?
We need energy storage.
Although I’d like to know more about the kerimov link
Now that Russia is on the naughty step Iran's oil and gas is needed. The Americans are backing off sanctions and that has allowed us to sort out the debt for the tanks. The hostages have been released as a result. Things have fallen into alignment. It is not some great triumph for the government to get them released, nor was it a failure to get these hostages released when it was beyond our power. Its the real world.
Indeed there are fewer than thought as most want to stay near to Ukraine
Some people never learn - what are the chances a Labour MP brings this up at PMQs?
We can do very little about the US State Dept.
When Russia invaded I said that 2 things were now nailed on:
1. Johnson will lead the Conservatives into the next GE
2. Johnson will lead the Conservatives into defeat at the next GE
Subsequent events, big and small, have only reinforced my judgement. I have been absent from PB for a while, but I’d just like to say how repulsive I find the behaviour of P&O. This is what happens to ordinary, well-qualified, hard-working people when dictatorships like Russia, China and the Gulf states control vast chunks of the economy. Basic concepts like caring for the people in your company go straight out the window. A horrific scandal in industrial relations and in seafaring history. And predictably… very predictably… the Tories are sitting on their hands. Shame on all of you!
Of course it would be reasonable to say that any respectable Government would tell the US to take a walk and sign anyway.
Edmund Burke
It may upset the green lobby but then transitioning to net zero is 20 plus years anyway
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60807600
It'd be good if he got the same media attention the attractive mother got. But he won't.
Also, Thornberry has previously opposed Trident: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/08/emily-thornberry-clashes-labour-mps-trident
So far as I can tell, the other three are indeed neutral, but happy to be corrected.
No, I haven't missed the point. Your doing so makes you a pillock.
Or, we already do. Have you ever had a dream, malcolm, that you seemed so sure it was real? But if you were unable to wake up from that dream, how would you tell the difference between the dream world & the real world?
Fuck that plot point annoys me with the stupidity of the physics. Ruins the film when they could so easily have pinched an idea from Hyperion, and had the machines cocooning the humans so as to use their brains as extra computing power.
Point is, "green policies" is good, not just for the planet but also for energy security. Fossil fuels are still needed in the medium term, and we have supplies of those, not just from Russia.
The question is what to do differently in that short to medium term because of the Russia issue? Going hell for leather on the "green policies" should be objective number 1.
Additional short term sources should be brought on if possible. But they have to be useful. ie they can be brought on stream in the next one or two years and can pay back in a relatively short period of time, may be with a subsidy element. Additional sources won't be needed beyond ten years time or so. Renewables will provide most of our energy if we have done it properly, while existing fossil fuel sources can fill in the rest.
Why so different from Johnson in Afghanistan?
These fcukwits have ranted for years about how there was no oil left and as if by magic it all appears again, definitely a fantasy world for sure.
Personally I would have a mixture of some of our Trident missiles, which we lease off the Americans and our own missiles like the French have.
@NeilPHauer
·
14h
Something I've noticed over the past week or so here: almost every Ukrainian I spoke to has made it clear that they blame not only Putin, but the average Russian as much (or more) for this war. The view is: we overthrew our corrupt government, and they accept their murderous one.
The amount of animosity from the average Ukrainian towards the average Russian is already huge and growing more with every single new airstrike, every new civilian death. The effects of this war will last for generations.
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1505274811337089025
PS Derniere maitresse de milord Byron. LOL.
Also, I need to underscore this because I don't think you've quite understood it: Germany has a blanket ban on arms exports to conflict zones for which they have made an exception in supplying Ukraine. The implication in your post is that Germany has singled out Ukraine to not be supplied whereas as the opposite is now much closer to the truth.
Previous: blanket ban
Now: blanket ban with pro-Ukraine exception.
Click on "show previous quotes" and give reading it a go.
If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Putin would likely not have invaded it
People are not good or evil, just open to good or evil thoughts and actions.
"Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşolοglu told the Hürriyet newspaper today that Russia and Ukraine were approaching an agreement on "critical" issues and had almost agreed on certain issues.''
Let's hope.
They've been shamed into helping out. There's nothing noble in it.
He could have TRIED. He could have CARED. He could have used the diplomatic force of HMG and the FCO to work behind the scenes on the diplomacy needed to get us here. He didn't, because he didn't care, because she is nothing to him. That's the reality you are defending. Turns out Truss and Hunt did what you said was impossible for Boris to do.
I have never said there was none left, but it's profitability did dive because Putin and the Saudis got in a price battle (forgive me if I am wrong) and drove the price down (blissful days). It is now likely to be more profitable again - good times for Aberdeen.
@TimothyDSnyder
When Putin says that there is no Ukrainian nation and no Ukrainian state, he means that he intends to destroy the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian state. Everyone gets that, right?
#Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #UkraineUnderAttack
https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1505367187774742529
As I say, how many gas boilers need changing out. Millions. It will take many years. Heat pumps are not very good and there are something like 50,000 produced annually in the U.K.
PS: There i snothing that could ever happen to make G not believe in the sanctity and worship of the Tories. If the Tories nuked Wales he would agree it was necessary and good for the country.
The idea that we could reasonably do more, faster, is not viable.
Here and now we need gas and you're right we are reliant on imports. But we could produce more oil and gas and even as we move towards net zero we should do. Better to be burning our own hydrocarbons at the end than someone else's. It was the same with coal - utterly stupid to shut down mines with stacks of cheap coal and then ship it half way round the world. As if coal wasn't dirty enough already.
They recognise there is a difference between the icky grey slushy slightly melted snow underfoot and the harsh icefilled snow storm from the northern waste that will kill you in minutes if you are not careful.
Should we not recognise the difference between Boris and Putin similarly?