When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Said it months ago, the prime time for a Boris removal is after the local elections. You get the feeling that beyond those who hate him and always did, the public, perhaps, are just getting a bit bored of the guy.
Locals are a useful protest point. Shit result, Conservative MPS do some projection, project disaster at next GE, send him out. Nothing like election results to provide cover.
The possibility always is that the Conservatives have a par performance thus creating the worst situation. One thing does look clear though, Johnson is going to have to be carried out of No.10.
If the Tories are level with Labour or just a few per cent behind in the projected national vote share at the local elections it probably won't be enough to get rid of Johnson.
Fundamentally, the question is how deep is the public's anger? Clearly the COVID families are furious but they are necessarily representative of the wider public?
A lot of people who already hate Boris are going to kick up a fuss but the question is once Sue Gray is published, how much further can the story go? There has to be a chance that in the next couple of weeks, Putin's forces will have regrouped and then the focus will be back to primarily being Ukraine.
Tory MP tells Newsnight Johnson can't leave now as he is Putin's no 1 enemy.
Idiotic and dangerous hyperbole. There's a non-zero risk of escalating purely for domestic reasons with no strategic plan. Whoever said that is the biggest twat of this day of a thousand twats.
Tory MP for Cambridge S.
To be honest, it’s something that has been there but not really said “don’t be absurd! can’t rid of Boris now, we are at war!”
But now they are having to vocalise it, have this idea tested like a barricade to defend.
The Daily Mail’s front page is almost identical to what my mum text me six hours ago! Just missing the bit about Carrie ambushed him with cake because he is always in her thoughts.
This time the jokes on them, because there are more fines for more breaches coming, more photo’s, and a damning Sue Grey report they can’t muzzle.
And with his trust and credibility about to crater more, there’s a strong argument a hated and untrusted leader is not the best person to Be in charge at a time of crisis.
Boris is doing Zilch in this war a Wallace, May or Hague couldn’t do as a stop gap. That’s the truth isn’t it?
Yes this will get momentum of it own now, the Mail’s front page flailing on the beach trying to stop incoming tide. 😌
Of those 3 distinctly unpalatable options, I think a May comeback I could bear the best. Would even be a bit sweet to see her get a brief encore.
We know how lazy Boris is, the country will be better off with a proper politician in number 10 right now. The Battle with Putin’s regime in theatre and sanctions, and the cost of living crisis caused by many things, can be even better led by a more able politician than Boris and the Pygmy’s he deliberately surrounded himself with. That’s the flipping elephant in the room the spineless Tory party are turning their heads away from. Until the elephant drowns them in so much shit in the coming week they are forced into acting.
Perhaps a example for Boris to cling to is Bill Clinton. After the Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans tried to impeach him but he left office in 2001 with one of the highest approval ratings of modern times.
As I said earlier Boris should go, precisely because they were his laws, but we should also have a grownup national debate* about how we ended up with stupid draconian laws that placed work colleagues who were together anyway in legal trouble for sharing a cake or a bottle of wine when they could in amongst their work (the parties going on late into the night are a different proposition). We should never make such laws again.
Said it months ago, the prime time for a Boris removal is after the local elections. You get the feeling that beyond those who hate him and always did, the public, perhaps, are just getting a bit bored of the guy.
Locals are a useful protest point. Shit result, Conservative MPS do some projection, project disaster at next GE, send him out. Nothing like election results to provide cover.
The possibility always is that the Conservatives have a par performance thus creating the worst situation. One thing does look clear though, Johnson is going to have to be carried out of No.10.
Totally agree with you again Yokes, regardless what they say today and tomorrow, the fingers crossed behind their backs is knowing there’s nothing like bad election results to provide cover.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Said it months ago, the prime time for a Boris removal is after the local elections. You get the feeling that beyond those who hate him and always did, the public, perhaps, are just getting a bit bored of the guy.
Locals are a useful protest point. Shit result, Conservative MPS do some projection, project disaster at next GE, send him out. Nothing like election results to provide cover.
The possibility always is that the Conservatives have a par performance thus creating the worst situation. One thing does look clear though, Johnson is going to have to be carried out of No.10.
If the Tories are level with Labour or just a few per cent behind in the projected national vote share at the local elections it probably won't be enough to get rid of Johnson.
Fundamentally, the question is how deep is the public's anger? Clearly the COVID families are furious but they are necessarily representative of the wider public?
A lot of people who already hate Boris are going to kick up a fuss but the question is once Sue Gray is published, how much further can the story go? There has to be a chance that in the next couple of weeks, Putin's forces will have regrouped and then the focus will be back to primarily being Ukraine.
The people who hated Boris before, will hate him even more. The people who loved Boris before will defend him more vigorously. The majority of people will read and watch the news, tut or smile and decide who they'll vote for about 1-2 weeks before the next election.
In the words of Saint Theresa "Nothing has changed". Despite any opinion polls which, mid-term, are basically bollocks in predicting anything.
As I said earlier Boris should go, precisely because they were his laws, but we should also have a grownup national debate* about how we ended up with stupid draconian laws that placed work colleagues who were together anyway in legal trouble for sharing a cake or a bottle of wine when they could in amongst their work (the parties going on late into the night are a different proposition). We should never make such laws again.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
GOP pollster says Republicans are mocking ‘child’ Trump https://thehill.com/news/3264736-gop-pollster-says-republicans-are-mocking-child-trump/ Prominent GOP pollster Frank Luntz said in a recent interview that Republicans in private are mocking former President Trump and they are “tired of going back and rehashing the 2020 election.” Luntz said he was not surprised by comments made by New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) that gained attention from the Gridiron Club’s annual dinner. “He’s f—— crazy,” Sununu said of Trump earlier this month at the annual event, known for its roasts of politicians and other figures. “I don’t think he’s so crazy that you could put him in a mental institution,” he added. “But I think if he were in one, he ain’t getting out.” Luntz said that while the comments were made at a roast, many members of the Republican party feel the same way. “I don’t know a single Republican who was surprised by what Sununu said. He said what they were thinking,” Luntz said to The Daily Beast. “They won’t say it [in public], but behind his back, they think he’s a child. They’re laughing at him.” “That’s what made it significant,” he added, referring to Sununu’s comments. Luntz added, “Trump isn’t the same man he was a year ago.”…
Literally an entire story from a comment someone made at a dinner?
Not just ANY dinner.
The Gridiron Dinner is (or was) one of the marquee events of the Washington DC political calendar
Note that Republican enthusiasm (at least rhetorical) for Ukraine is due to its utility in differentiating one from 45 and his true believers-asslickers. Without actually saying you're against the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. Unless you want to.
I don't like Johnson and his flagrant disregard for his own rules. But right now I'm much more concerned with the outcome of the war. So his removal isn't a priority as far as I'm concerned.
You would argue swapping Boris out and Wallace in doesn’t satisfy your concerns of war management even better? Surely Boris and Wallace positions on Animal flights in Afghan evacuation wins the argument all by itself?
Tory MP tells Newsnight Johnson can't leave now as he is Putin's no 1 enemy.
Tory politics is getting very Trumpian. I have no doubt that some see the PMs FPT as some left wing conspiracy rather than his own malfeasance.
I have always liked the offence of “malfeasance in a public office” but I’m not sure what was the last time someone was done for it. It seems to have died.
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Tory MP tells Newsnight Johnson can't leave now as he is Putin's no 1 enemy.
Tory politics is getting very Trumpian. I have no doubt that some see the PMs FPT as some left wing conspiracy rather than his own malfeasance.
I have always liked the offence of “malfeasance in a public office” but I’m not sure what was the last time someone was done for it. It seems to have died.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
Newsnight was interesting. The Telegraph editor though Johnson would be PM at the next election and would win. Tim Montgomerie thinks Johnson staying will irrevocable damage the party and he must be forced out now
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
So, he would have had his best chance when Trump was POTUS?
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
You try to paint resistance to this "theory" as desperate, but the truth is, it's honestly just such a dumb view it generates its own heat from the sheer friction against reality. You're selecting convenient facts and putting aside contrary evidence that's out there for anyone to see. It even fails on its own terms: what happened between 2014 and 2017, between the initial invasion and Trump taking office? Why stop then when "weak" Obama is in power? Honestly, I can't say it more plainly, this a still-born idea. It's a mix of gross oversimplification and almost total ignorance of actual things that happened. I'm sorry, it really is a stupid conclusion.
You refuse to even consider the possibility.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
I'm thinking the Tories will lose 200 councillors although I may have underestimated the no. of all out elections so there is potential for more damage on a bad night.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
Well lets look at attrition since 2019. 2020 ballsed due to the plague. 2021 saw net gain of 235 Tory Councillors.
We are 2 years out from GE. so to compare: 2006 (319 Labour Losses), 2007 (665 Labour losses), and 2008 (334 Labour losses). So 1,318 losses from 2006 to 2008 inclusive.
To gain par with Blair in the 2005 to 2010 parliament Tories can withstand 1,553 losses.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
So, he would have had his best chance when Trump was POTUS?
You have just destroyed your own case.
I'm not making a case that Trump being President stopped Putin invading Ukraine but I certainly think its possible it had an effect.
And a possibility which is worthy of discussion - that some have a Pavlovian need to deny that possibility saddens/intrigues/amuses me.
As to my late 2020 hypothesis I would suggest that chaos in the western world would have restricted any response and GDR Merkel leading Germany would have greatly benefitted Putin and possibly the winter weather re energy supply as well.
Putin didn't invade* Ukraine during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
Italy didn't win a Six Nations match during Trump's time in office! Trump must be the cause!
*never mind the fact that the Russians continued the war in Donbass throughout this time, shelling and shooting and seizing territory. That doesn't fit the narrative so it didn't happen.
That the mad unpredictability of Trump might have been a deterrence factor doesn't fit your narrative so it must be denied as loudly and shrilly as possible.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama. 2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
In Cameron's memoirs, he credits himself with giving Putin the idea of holding a referendum in Crimea.
No way! 😲
This is the quote:
"I tried to persuade him that there was a way of negotiating a peaceful outcome, respecting Russia’s interests in Ukraine. ‘We are having a referendum to see if Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom,’ I said. ‘You can have a referendum on Crimea’s membership of Russia, but it’s got to be fair and legal. What you’ve done is basically subvert the territorial integrity of another nation state.’ But he just didn’t accept that. It was as if we were sitting at the same chessboard but playing two completely different games."
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
I'm thinking the Tories will lose 200 councillors although I may have underestimated the no. of all out elections so there is potential for more damage on a bad night.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
EdM led by 7% in 2012 and Kinnock by 7% in 1985.
It was Labour's 11% lead in 1990 which put the pressure on Thatcher.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
I'm thinking the Tories will lose 200 councillors although I may have underestimated the no. of all out elections so there is potential for more damage on a bad night.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
So, he would have had his best chance when Trump was POTUS?
You have just destroyed your own case.
I'm not making a case that Trump being President stopped Putin invading Ukraine but I certainly think its possible it had an effect.
And a possibility which is worthy of discussion - that some have a Pavlovian need to deny that possibility saddens/intrigues/amuses me.
As to my late 2020 hypothesis I would suggest that chaos in the western world would have restricted any response and GDR Merkel leading Germany would have greatly benefitted Putin and possibly the winter weather re energy supply as well.
That's the second time you've referred to Merkel as "GDR Merkel". What's that about?
Merkel came from the German Democratic Republic. East Germany.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
So, he would have had his best chance when Trump was POTUS?
You have just destroyed your own case.
I'm not making a case that Trump being President stopped Putin invading Ukraine but I certainly think its possible it had an effect.
And a possibility which is worthy of discussion - that some have a Pavlovian need to deny that possibility saddens/intrigues/amuses me.
As to my late 2020 hypothesis I would suggest that chaos in the western world would have restricted any response and GDR Merkel leading Germany would have greatly benefitted Putin and possibly the winter weather re energy supply as well.
That's the second time you've referred to Merkel as "GDR Merkel". What's that about?
Merkel came from the German Democratic Republic. East Germany.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but my question was more "what are you trying to say?"
Dunno. Probably that she grew up in and was influenced by Soviet political doctrine. At a guess.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
You try to paint resistance to this "theory" as desperate, but the truth is, it's honestly just such a dumb view it generates its own heat from the sheer friction against reality. You're selecting convenient facts and putting aside contrary evidence that's out there for anyone to see. It even fails on its own terms: what happened between 2014 and 2017, between the initial invasion and Trump taking office? Why stop then when "weak" Obama is in power? Honestly, I can't say it more plainly, this a still-born idea. It's a mix of gross oversimplification and almost total ignorance of actual things that happened. I'm sorry, it really is a stupid conclusion.
You refuse to even consider the possibility.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
Well, no, you're wrong there. I've heard this theory before and it interested me so I looked into it. And it is massively unconvincing because it does not fit the facts. You haven't brought anything new to the idea in what you've said this evening, above what I'd already heard before, so I haven't had to reassess anything today.
Give it up, your whole response has been Pavlovian.
If you want to open your mind then how about first considering what Putin might want in a US President:
Strong or not ? Predictable or not ? Persuadable or not ? Alert or senile ? Domestically focussed or internationally focussed ?
And doubtless other possibilities.
Some things Trump might suit Putin's purposes best and some things Biden might suit Putin's purposes best but where does the balance lay ? And not the actual balance of reality but how Putin saw it.
The Tories will do better than expected at the local elections as most Conservative voters ate solidly behind Johnson. Sunak and Johnson have both apologised so people should nowmove on.
Even BigGNorthWales will be voting Conservative I reckon despite his recent terrible disloyalty to Johnson.
Disloyalty? He flip flops so often I feel dizzy.
Literally two weeks ago he was calling for Rishi to take over. And before that how amazing Johnson was.
To be fair CHB you were almost kneeling between Corbyn's legs before the 2019 election.
Fair point. Doesn't make me wrong though.
I called for Corbyn to be kicked out of the party months and months ago, Big G was still calling him and Rishi great despite all the evidence to the contrary.
No, no - not saying you're wrong. But just remember your loyalty and obvious devotion prior to 22.00hrs on that December eve. Nothing would convince you otherwise.
You had the wherewithal to withdraw for a sabbatical after that night, like Superman to the Fortress of Solitude, and come back a refreshed and invigorated Starmerite. Others didn't take that journey.
You have to stick with your man, to Death or Glory, until another man on your team stabs him in the back. Or he falls on the battle-ground. Flip-flopping goes nowhere. This is politics!
I’m just a big standard centre leftie now, very comfortable here.
If and when somebody better than Starmer comes along they can have my support. I like Wes Streeting.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
I'm thinking the Tories will lose 200 councillors although I may have underestimated the no. of all out elections so there is potential for more damage on a bad night.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
EdM led by 7% in 2012 and Kinnock by 7% in 1985.
It was Labour's 11% lead in 1990 which put the pressure on Thatcher.
Yes I am aware of all that although I notice John Smith only led by 8% in 1993 which is perhaps a good comparison as well (although that was county councils and Wales). I am only confident of Labour doing 'well' in Northern Met districts and Wales and I think Bury is the only all up Met council?
I also only expect a modest Labour gain of about 3% in Scotland although Lab could narrowly come 2nd in cllrs there now.
Honestly I think Labour would have to win Plymouth and Swindon and make proper inroads in the West Midlands to put proper pressure on the gvt which I don't see happening.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
You try to paint resistance to this "theory" as desperate, but the truth is, it's honestly just such a dumb view it generates its own heat from the sheer friction against reality. You're selecting convenient facts and putting aside contrary evidence that's out there for anyone to see. It even fails on its own terms: what happened between 2014 and 2017, between the initial invasion and Trump taking office? Why stop then when "weak" Obama is in power? Honestly, I can't say it more plainly, this a still-born idea. It's a mix of gross oversimplification and almost total ignorance of actual things that happened. I'm sorry, it really is a stupid conclusion.
You refuse to even consider the possibility.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
Well, no, you're wrong there. I've heard this theory before and it interested me so I looked into it. And it is massively unconvincing because it does not fit the facts. You haven't brought anything new to the idea in what you've said this evening, above what I'd already heard before, so I haven't had to reassess anything today.
Just to give you the substantive version of this argument, there are some senior Russian dissidents such as Andrei Illarionov who described the Biden-Putin talks last year in Geneva as a new Munich. The US administration lifted sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and started talking in terms of Russia's legitimate security interests, and some suspected a sell out at the time.
Here's an interview from last December that might be worth watching:
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Crayola geopolitics
So you don't have a proper response ?
Mad and bad as Trump was he was also dangerously unpredictable.
Obama was predictably weak and so was Biden.
What Putin was wrong about was that Biden wasn't as weak as he expected.
Trump is not unpredictable, he's a self-absorbed charlatan. He'd sell Ukraine to Putin for the right price. He'd defend Ukraine if someone was paying him more.
So why didn't Putin pay Trump's price when he had four years to do so ?
The reality is Putin thought it was easier to attack Ukraine when Obama and Biden were President rather than when Trump was.
Yes, and he was wrong to think that. Putin believed his own propaganda and had his army thrashed outside of Kyiv, and is about to encounter 1000 Switchblade drones in the Donbas.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
There's at least five major misjudgements Putin has made:
1) Overestimated Russia's military 2) Underestimated Ukraine's military 3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people 4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive 5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA 2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany 3) Covid hitting the western world hard 4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
So, he would have had his best chance when Trump was POTUS?
You have just destroyed your own case.
I'm not making a case that Trump being President stopped Putin invading Ukraine but I certainly think its possible it had an effect.
And a possibility which is worthy of discussion - that some have a Pavlovian need to deny that possibility saddens/intrigues/amuses me.
As to my late 2020 hypothesis I would suggest that chaos in the western world would have restricted any response and GDR Merkel leading Germany would have greatly benefitted Putin and possibly the winter weather re energy supply as well.
That's the second time you've referred to Merkel as "GDR Merkel". What's that about?
Merkel came from the German Democratic Republic. East Germany.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but my question was more "what are you trying to say?"
Dunno. Probably that she grew up in and was influenced by Soviet political doctrine. At a guess.
Indeed.
I don't see how Merkel's GDR upbringing can be discounted in any discussion on her attitude towards Russia.
In the same way going to Eton is always deemed worthy of a mention when a politician went to that school.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
You try to paint resistance to this "theory" as desperate, but the truth is, it's honestly just such a dumb view it generates its own heat from the sheer friction against reality. You're selecting convenient facts and putting aside contrary evidence that's out there for anyone to see. It even fails on its own terms: what happened between 2014 and 2017, between the initial invasion and Trump taking office? Why stop then when "weak" Obama is in power? Honestly, I can't say it more plainly, this a still-born idea. It's a mix of gross oversimplification and almost total ignorance of actual things that happened. I'm sorry, it really is a stupid conclusion.
You refuse to even consider the possibility.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
Well, no, you're wrong there. I've heard this theory before and it interested me so I looked into it. And it is massively unconvincing because it does not fit the facts. You haven't brought anything new to the idea in what you've said this evening, above what I'd already heard before, so I haven't had to reassess anything today.
Give it up, your whole response has been Pavlovian.
If you want to open your mind then how about first considering what Putin might want in a US President:
Strong or not ? Predictable or not ? Persuadable or not ? Alert or senile ? Domestically focussed or internationally focussed ?
And doubtless other possibilities.
Some things Trump might suit Putin's purposes best and some things Biden might suit Putin's purposes best but where does the balance lay ? And not the actual balance of reality but how Putin saw it.
My answers: Weak, predictable, persuadable, senile, and depends. The "depends" at the end there is a really a function of the persuadability, because it's great if you can have a puppet doing your dirty work so international focus could be useful.
I would add that "compromised" is desirable above all else.
I think some of these "qualities" apply to Trump, some to Biden, and some to both of them. I don't really think many sensible people would disagree they are both flawed.
Much better
I suspect Trump's desire to be flattered and dislike of foreign entanglements would have suited Putin but Trump's unpredictability and need to be the alpha male made Putin cautious.
Biden being seemingly senile and predictable from being Obama's VP would also have suited Putin.
I do wonder if Hilary Clinton would have been the best potential President to worry Putin - I've always thought of her as a hard bitch.
If Labour was in power now there would be no “there’s a war on”, their head would be on offer.
So for that reason Johnson should go.
He won’t, which cynically means Labour is in a good position to win GE2024
There are few politicians who always do the honourable thing.
Boris is simply more reckless and shameless than most.
Which is why we discount him at our peril.
Which is true. We had these same discussions in 2019 over the dissolution (or otherwise) of Parliament. Everyone then said he was "finished".
Johnson has this knack of making his opponents so incandescent and blind with rage, because he's him, that they lose rationality and more importantly, focus. Maintain focus on Col, policies or lack of them. What he does or does not achieve whilst governing. Stop focussing on the man. Whether he's a cad, a liar a bounder or whatever. It doesn't matter. People know this.
It's so bloody simple, as a Tory I'm ashamed to have to tell you. And his Tory opponents should realise this too.
"As Russia’s war of aggression continues to ravage its neighbor, the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been more blatant than ever in outlining the country’s goals for its biggest nemesis: the U.S.
Last week, American intelligence officials reportedly assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order a new campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. Though AP reported that “it is not yet clear which candidates Russia might try to promote or what methods it might use,” Russian state media seem to be in agreement that former U.S. President Donald Trump remains Moscow’s candidate of choice."
" “Tulsi Gabbard would also be great. Maybe Trump will take her as his vice-president?” "
Yet Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 (President Obama) and 2022 (President Biden) but not 2017-2020 (President Trump).
Correlation, causation, etc.
X might or might not be connected to Y.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
You try to paint resistance to this "theory" as desperate, but the truth is, it's honestly just such a dumb view it generates its own heat from the sheer friction against reality. You're selecting convenient facts and putting aside contrary evidence that's out there for anyone to see. It even fails on its own terms: what happened between 2014 and 2017, between the initial invasion and Trump taking office? Why stop then when "weak" Obama is in power? Honestly, I can't say it more plainly, this a still-born idea. It's a mix of gross oversimplification and almost total ignorance of actual things that happened. I'm sorry, it really is a stupid conclusion.
You refuse to even consider the possibility.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
Well, no, you're wrong there. I've heard this theory before and it interested me so I looked into it. And it is massively unconvincing because it does not fit the facts. You haven't brought anything new to the idea in what you've said this evening, above what I'd already heard before, so I haven't had to reassess anything today.
Give it up, your whole response has been Pavlovian.
If you want to open your mind then how about first considering what Putin might want in a US President:
Strong or not ? Predictable or not ? Persuadable or not ? Alert or senile ? Domestically focussed or internationally focussed ?
And doubtless other possibilities.
Some things Trump might suit Putin's purposes best and some things Biden might suit Putin's purposes best but where does the balance lay ? And not the actual balance of reality but how Putin saw it.
My answers: Weak, predictable, persuadable, senile, and depends. The "depends" at the end there is a really a function of the persuadability, because it's great if you can have a puppet doing your dirty work so international focus could be useful.
I would add that "compromised" is desirable above all else.
I think some of these "qualities" apply to Trump, some to Biden, and some to both of them. I don't really think many sensible people would disagree they are both flawed.
Much better
I suspect Trump's desire to be flattered and dislike of foreign entanglements would have suited Putin but Trump's unpredictability and need to be the alpha male made Putin cautious.
Biden being seemingly senile and predictable from being Obama's VP would also have suited Putin.
I do wonder if Hilary Clinton would have been the best potential President to worry Putin - I've always thought of her as a hard bitch.
My view: Biden's ridiculous haste to remove the US from Afghanistan was misread by Putin. He saw it as the US not being interested in foreign entanglements at all. While the reality is that Biden doesn't give a shit about the Middle East/Afghanistan, but cares very deeply about NATO.
"Turning all the German nuclear reactors back on could approximately stop gas imports from Russia. Shutting the remaining ones down could increase the dependency on Russian gas by about 30%."
I remember in the 2015 Election thinking "how can anyone vote for this man Corbyn". He enraged me with who he was, what he had done, the people he mixed with, the history he had. I became blind. And I screamed at the TV every time the man appeared. The Mail slung shit at him on near daily basis - all based ON THE MAN. But nothing, NOTHING seemed to dent the crowds, the adulation and I thought "how is this possible".
I felt like Johnson opponents today.
What Corbyn's opponents failed to concentrate on, at least in 2015 was his policies. All the focus on the man hid his policies which weren't examined enough or challenged enough. They weren't shredded for the crap that they were. And he nearly got elected.
In 2019 - people knew the man already. It was priced in. They took one look at the policies and it was a big "no thanks".
So Johnson and Corbyn very similar. Play the ball. Not the man.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Yes, because any British PM* would be doing what Johnson is doing for Ukraine.
No British PM has ever been convicted of a crime while in office before.
I remember in the 2015 Election thinking "how can anyone vote for this man Corbyn". He enraged me with who he was, what he had done, the people he mixed with, the history he had. I became blind. And I screamed at the TV every time the man appeared. The Mail slung shit at him on near daily basis - all based ON THE MAN. But nothing, NOTHING seemed to dent the crowds, the adulation and I thought "how is this possible".
I felt like Johnson opponents today.
What Corbyn's opponents failed to concentrate on, at least in 2015 was his policies. All the focus on the man hid his policies which weren't examined enough or challenged enough. They weren't shredded for the crap that they were. And he nearly got elected.
In 2019 - people knew the man already. It was priced in. They took one look at the policies and it was a big "no thanks".
So Johnson and Corbyn very similar. Play the ball. Not the man.
I get all that. But in this case the ball is a very simple principle that ministers cannot lie to parliament. Cannot break the law. That Boris is a liar isn't the issue. That the Prime Minister lied and broke the law is the issue.
Any other PM - including every previous Tory one - would have gone already as a matter of simple principle. They had standards. Morals. Honour.
So we cannot let this man stay in office and debase our entire political system. There is too much at risk if we allow this and slide towards authoritarianism.
I remember in the 2015 Election thinking "how can anyone vote for this man Corbyn". He enraged me with who he was, what he had done, the people he mixed with, the history he had. I became blind. And I screamed at the TV every time the man appeared. The Mail slung shit at him on near daily basis - all based ON THE MAN. But nothing, NOTHING seemed to dent the crowds, the adulation and I thought "how is this possible".
I felt like Johnson opponents today.
What Corbyn's opponents failed to concentrate on, at least in 2015 was his policies. All the focus on the man hid his policies which weren't examined enough or challenged enough. They weren't shredded for the crap that they were. And he nearly got elected.
In 2019 - people knew the man already. It was priced in. They took one look at the policies and it was a big "no thanks".
So Johnson and Corbyn very similar. Play the ball. Not the man.
If you remember the 2015 Election you would remember Ed M was Labour leader.
If you cant distinguish between 2015 and 2017 well what can I say
And the reason for the Crowds was hope and expectation of something different from the previous 38 years and yes those fantastic policies
I remember in the 2015 Election thinking "how can anyone vote for this man Corbyn". He enraged me with who he was, what he had done, the people he mixed with, the history he had. I became blind. And I screamed at the TV every time the man appeared. The Mail slung shit at him on near daily basis - all based ON THE MAN. But nothing, NOTHING seemed to dent the crowds, the adulation and I thought "how is this possible".
I felt like Johnson opponents today.
What Corbyn's opponents failed to concentrate on, at least in 2015 was his policies. All the focus on the man hid his policies which weren't examined enough or challenged enough. They weren't shredded for the crap that they were. And he nearly got elected.
In 2019 - people knew the man already. It was priced in. They took one look at the policies and it was a big "no thanks".
So Johnson and Corbyn very similar. Play the ball. Not the man.
If you remember the 2015 Election you would remember Ed M was Labour leader.
If you cant distinguish between 2015 and 2017 well what can I say
And the reason for the Crowds was hope and expectation of something different from the previous 38 years and yes those fantastic policies
Wouldn't you prefer that Corbyn did what he's good at. Getting the fringe worked up. Minority interests and left the cumbersome job of getting into power to politicians who are good at it and aren't quite so niche? It strikes me too many of your battles are out of date
Comments
A lot of people who already hate Boris are going to kick up a fuss but the question is once Sue Gray is published, how much further can the story go? There has to be a chance that in the next couple of weeks, Putin's forces will have regrouped and then the focus will be back to primarily being Ukraine.
Power corrupts.
*Spoiler - we won’t.
In the words of Saint Theresa "Nothing has changed". Despite any opinion polls which, mid-term, are basically bollocks in predicting anything.
The Gridiron Dinner is (or was) one of the marquee events of the Washington DC political calendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridiron_Club
Note that Republican enthusiasm (at least rhetorical) for Ukraine is due to its utility in differentiating one from 45 and his true believers-asslickers. Without actually saying you're against the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. Unless you want to.
You are unwilling to consider any possibility that the world might be different from what you deem it to be and facts must be denied if they are inconvenient.
But the facts remain:
2014 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Obama.
2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - President Biden.
Now its possible to discuss why Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was President - there might be many reasons why he didn't.
But to refuse to consider that Trump being President was one of them merely reveals that that possibility is too terrible for your world view.
What intrigues me is how desperate some are to deny the possibility that Trump being President had any effect on Putin not invading Ukraine between 2017 and 2020.
2022 Putin attacks Ukraine - PM Johnson.
He must have expected Biden to scuttle like Trump from Syria.
Maybe underestimating Biden and believing Trump was his biggest error.
Boris is more of a lazy, greedy, feckless scrounger who ignores anything which he finds inconvenient.
Boris might take the bribe money but not do what he was given it for.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
1) Overestimated Russia's military
2) Underestimated Ukraine's military
3) Totally misjudged the mood of Ukraine's people
4) Underestimated how much support Ukraine would receive
5) Underestimated the sanctions which would be imposed
IMO the optimum time for Putin to invade might have been Nov/Dec 2020:
1) Disputed election in USA
2) GDR Merkel in power in Germany
3) Covid hitting the western world hard
4) The military balance more in Russia's favour
You have just destroyed your own case.
Might I suggest you try to have a more open mind.
It allows you to discuss things more rationally and sometimes learn things beyond your comfort zone.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
We are 2 years out from GE. so to compare: 2006 (319 Labour Losses), 2007 (665 Labour losses), and 2008 (334 Labour losses). So 1,318 losses from 2006 to 2008 inclusive.
To gain par with Blair in the 2005 to 2010 parliament Tories can withstand 1,553 losses.
And a possibility which is worthy of discussion - that some have a Pavlovian need to deny that possibility saddens/intrigues/amuses me.
As to my late 2020 hypothesis I would suggest that chaos in the western world would have restricted any response and GDR Merkel leading Germany would have greatly benefitted Putin and possibly the winter weather re energy supply as well.
"I tried to persuade him that there was a way of negotiating a peaceful outcome, respecting Russia’s interests in Ukraine. ‘We are having a referendum to see if Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom,’ I said. ‘You can have a referendum on Crimea’s membership of Russia, but it’s got to be fair and legal. What you’ve done is basically subvert the territorial integrity of another nation state.’ But he just didn’t accept that. It was as if we were sitting at the same chessboard but playing two completely different games."
It was Labour's 11% lead in 1990 which put the pressure on Thatcher.
If you want to open your mind then how about first considering what Putin might want in a US President:
Strong or not ?
Predictable or not ?
Persuadable or not ?
Alert or senile ?
Domestically focussed or internationally focussed ?
And doubtless other possibilities.
Some things Trump might suit Putin's purposes best and some things Biden might suit Putin's purposes best but where does the balance lay ? And not the actual balance of reality but how Putin saw it.
If and when somebody better than Starmer comes along they can have my support. I like Wes Streeting.
I also only expect a modest Labour gain of about 3% in Scotland although Lab could narrowly come 2nd in cllrs there now.
Honestly I think Labour would have to win Plymouth and Swindon and make proper inroads in the West Midlands to put proper pressure on the gvt which I don't see happening.
If Labour was in power now there would be no “there’s a war on”, their head would be on offer.
So for that reason Johnson should go.
He won’t, which cynically means Labour is in a good position to win GE2024
Here's an interview from last December that might be worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vI9n6IEnog
I don't see how Merkel's GDR upbringing can be discounted in any discussion on her attitude towards Russia.
In the same way going to Eton is always deemed worthy of a mention when a politician went to that school.
But Tories here tell me otherwise so let’s see. I’m not comfortable enough to make a bet.
Boris is simply more reckless and shameless than most.
I suspect Trump's desire to be flattered and dislike of foreign entanglements would have suited Putin but Trump's unpredictability and need to be the alpha male made Putin cautious.
Biden being seemingly senile and predictable from being Obama's VP would also have suited Putin.
I do wonder if Hilary Clinton would have been the best potential President to worry Putin - I've always thought of her as a hard bitch.
Johnson has this knack of making his opponents so incandescent and blind with rage, because he's him, that they lose rationality and more importantly, focus. Maintain focus on Col, policies or lack of them. What he does or does not achieve whilst governing. Stop focussing on the man. Whether he's a cad, a liar a bounder or whatever. It doesn't matter. People know this.
It's so bloody simple, as a Tory I'm ashamed to have to tell you. And his Tory opponents should realise this too.
An astonishing fact:
"Turning all the German nuclear reactors back on could approximately stop gas imports from Russia. Shutting the remaining ones down could increase the dependency on Russian gas by about 30%."
https://twitter.com/erikbryn/status/1513530817426780165
I felt like Johnson opponents today.
What Corbyn's opponents failed to concentrate on, at least in 2015 was his policies. All the focus on the man hid his policies which weren't examined enough or challenged enough. They weren't shredded for the crap that they were. And he nearly got elected.
In 2019 - people knew the man already. It was priced in. They took one look at the policies and it was a big "no thanks".
So Johnson and Corbyn very similar. Play the ball. Not the man.
It may not be a coincidence he didn't get ministerial office until 1954...
No British PM has ever been convicted of a crime while in office before.
*bar Corbyn, McDonnell or Pidcock, obviously.
Any other PM - including every previous Tory one - would have gone already as a matter of simple principle. They had standards. Morals. Honour.
So we cannot let this man stay in office and debase our entire political system. There is too much at risk if we allow this and slide towards authoritarianism.
If you cant distinguish between 2015 and 2017 well what can I say
And the reason for the Crowds was hope and expectation of something different from the previous 38 years and yes those fantastic policies