....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
"I said nothing of the kind" says the PM in relation to comments made at the 22 last night towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC. Will be funny when the clip is released of him saying exactly that.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
Not sure that focusing on the BBC and the Archbishop was really the greatest tactic from SKS there. Should’ve just pressed on the FPN and rule breaking . Johnson is flailing all over the place but sadly I think Starmer could’ve landed more blows there than he did.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
Not sure that focusing on the BBC and the Archbishop was really the greatest tactic from SKS there. Should’ve just pressed on the FPN and rule breaking . Johnson is flailing all over the place but sadly I think Starmer could’ve landed more blows there than he did.
The thing about these graphs which does surprise is the spike after 2016 when conventional wisdom (and I think what I’ve read from some analysts) is that Theresa May and Nick Timothy cut down specifically on the student visa route.
May reduced the time a graduate could work after their degree from 2 years to 4 months. It has since been increased to 2 years again, by the current government. I don’t think she formally limited numbers.
She did have an odd bee in her bonnet about counting students in the immigration figures, which never seemed to make sense to me.
Undergraduates can work 20 hours per week during their degree (those of us from Fen Poly often forget that one can work during a degree - we were banned from doing so, save for holidays. Maybe at some other places too?)
Eh?
I was at Cambridge 92-95 and worked part time (and was allowed to work).
I was there from 91, and we definitely were not. Maybe it was the change to the 3 digit userids that heralded the change.
Weren't allowed to 2004-2007 either (summer excepted), although I don't see why one would have needed to in the glory days of bonus bagging and party poker.
Not sure what you're referring to with 3 digit userids.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
As I said, conspiracy-theory rubbish. The situation with Nazanin was much more complex than you let on.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
Not sure that focusing on the BBC and the Archbishop was really the greatest tactic from SKS there. Should’ve just pressed on the FPN and rule breaking . Johnson is flailing all over the place but sadly I think Starmer could’ve landed more blows there than he did.
Do they want a KO or not? Possibly not.
Not before local elections I would think.
I assume Labour have wargamed how they will deal with a new leader in the autumn as there is at least the small possibility that Tory MPs will finally do the right thing after May.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
As I said, conspiracy-theory rubbish. The situation with Nazanin was much more complex than you let on.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
There's a useful aphorism to the effect that anyone who is unable to explain something to a layman either doesn't understand it, or doesn't want the layman to understand it. If there is some mitigating factor in the tale of Nazanin and the state department, I am all ears. I am not sure how any complexity would alter the fundamentals of 'we wanted to do something, they said no, we obeyed without demur', but I am open to new info.
Complete gulf in effort, class and quality at Anfield tonight.
Liverpool went d3cades between winning the First Division and the Premier League. I’ve felt for a while that United May be in for a similar length of wait for their next top flight title. Too much structurally wrong at the club, including how the owners see the club. How sad...
The great thing for Man U fans is that there is another more successful team in their city that they can support
Chelsea?
Apologies. See I was beaten to it by some distance.
TalkTV @TalkTV · 57m Tory MP and ex Chief Whip Mark Harper tells Julia Boris Johnson broke his own rules and that "if you mislead Parliament, you have to resign".
"If you're the Prime Minister, you have a duty to be the role model citizen in following them to the letter."
"I said nothing of the kind" says the PM in relation to comments made at the 22 last night towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC. Will be funny when the clip is released of him saying exactly that.
Deeply stupid to get the Telegraph to put out the front page they did. Who's going to read beyond the headline?
People have pointed to Labour catching the Tories on "best for managing the economy". But is the real danger for Conservative MPs the *colossal* lead Labour have on "improve standard of living for people like me"?
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
That's new information for me. I believed that their forces had had a reduced capacity since WW2. I am entirely comfortable with Germany not having a big military, and instead pursuing its desire to run Europe with Teutonic efficiency via political and economical means. I would even prefer EU forces to be built up than German ones, provided Britain is not somehow shoe-horned in.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 6m Every major news outlet reported the Prime Minister's comments criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC. Did they all make it up. Or did whoever briefed them make it up. Or did Boris just lie again.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 20m The technical quality isn't as good as Cameron-Miliband but the obvious, personal and mutual hatred between Johnson-Starmer really elevates it as a PMQs hatred.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
A man has been sentenced to 10 weeks, suspended for two years, after admitting sending a “grossly offensive” viral video of a cardboard model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.
Paul Bussetti, 49, from Croydon, south London, pleaded guilty to one count when he appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday.
Bussetti was previously found not guilty after a two-day trial but the acquittal was quashed by the high court.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Not least because a leak from the 22 is likely to rally the backbenchers behind him.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
In fairness, they have a bit of a point. Freezing the thick end of £600bn of foreign currency and then having a default because they don't have access to it doesn't seem exactly cricket. But then, neither was Bucha so tough.
A man has been sentenced to 10 weeks, suspended for two years, after admitting sending a “grossly offensive” viral video of a cardboard model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.
Paul Bussetti, 49, from Croydon, south London, pleaded guilty to one count when he appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday.
Bussetti was previously found not guilty after a two-day trial but the acquittal was quashed by the high court.
I don't know whether I'm missing something, but I didn't think there was a law against being an utter prat.
Complete gulf in effort, class and quality at Anfield tonight.
Liverpool went d3cades between winning the First Division and the Premier League. I’ve felt for a while that United May be in for a similar length of wait for their next top flight title. Too much structurally wrong at the club, including how the owners see the club. How sad...
The great thing for Man U fans is that there is another more successful team in their city that they can support
Chelsea?
Does Surrey have any cities?
So Guildford isn't a city despite having a cathedral. Learn something new every day.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
While you clearly think the wrong side won the Cold War, back here in the real world West Germany were spending 3% of GDP on Defence.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
Johnson now sounding deranged.
Relatedly, one the stranger criticisms of the Archbishop is of "virtue signalling" Virtue signalling is his job.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
I agree with the point we are peripheral to the Ukraine war. And there's no doubt in my mind that Johnson views it purely through the lens of his political survival.
Everyone is peripheral to the war, except Russia and Ukraine. We are pretty bloody important though subject to that, and Johnson has turned in a solid performance on all fronts except refugees which hurts out overall score very badly (but is arguably Patel's fault more than his)
We're more important to the conflict than most non-combatants other than America, I think I'd agree with that. And apart from on refugees there does appear to be a happy convergence of what helps Ukraine and what helps Boris Johnson. But "Johnson leading the West against Putin" is fanciful in the extreme imo. Not that you're saying that, obvs, but it has been spotted in places.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
That's new information for me. I believed that their forces had had a reduced capacity since WW2. I am entirely comfortable with Germany not having a big military, and instead pursuing its desire to run Europe with Teutonic efficiency via political and economical means. I would even prefer EU forces to be built up than German ones, provided Britain is not somehow shoe-horned in.
Well, start by reading Wikipedia.
If you have any interest in military affairs in Europe, it seems surprising that you weren't aware of the huge German arms industry, which has been enthusiastically looking for new outlets since the German military scaled back so much. Anyone want to buy a U-Boat, brand new, nice stereo?
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
Those are healthy numbers for Labour but a 7% lead on those numbers during midterms aren't landslide numbers either way.
It's all to play for, for both parties. Opposition in lead during midterms is what normally happens, anyone who counts chickens now or pays too much attention either way to the polls now is just silly.
And yes I'd say the same if the numbers were reversed. I did say the same when they were.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
As ridiculous as the two women walking along (allowed) holding a coffee each (not allowed).
Them was the rules, as we all can't quite fucking believe now. And they were cheered on by plenty, including those here on the mighty PB.
They were indeed absurd and irrational. Only the common sense of most police officers in interpreting them judiciously (in the main) stopped them from falling into disrepute before they did.
Which rather brings home, once again, that the offence here is lying about it to the HoC. That is unacceptable.
It is an interesting point. Just like the two women with the coffee it is perfectly feasible that even the PM thought that a cake for a few minutes sprung on him couldn't possibly constitute a breach of the rules. So I get it that he genuinely thinks he didn't lie to the HoC.
But something is rotten about the process. Because he should have known so the answer to the question of whether he was a liar or an idiot is that he was the latter. And still gets cheered to the rafters by as @rottenborough notes the very MPs who voted for those rules.
It’s plausible perhaps that he didn’t think the cake was a breach of rules, although that would indicate a certain degree of stupidity as it should’ve been apparent that Carrie shouldn’t be mixing with Cabinet Office staff, but we wouldn’t be talking about all this if the cake incident was the only thing that happened.
There were multiple events Boris was at, there were multiple further events Boris appears to have had some knowledge of, and further events he should’ve known about. Wikipedia lists 20 different events (15 at No. 10; 5 elsewhere in Westminster). The police have handed out over 50 FPNs. Yet he stood up in Parliament and said all rules were followed. He could’ve easily caveated what he said at the time (“I know everyone in Downing Street was working hard. I believe we were all trying our best to follow the rules, but I’ll have the Chief of Staff look into it.”). But lying seems to come naturally to him.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
One thing the journalists can do. In the past, if a confidential source lied to them, under the old rules, they would name the source.
Thinking of the "confidential source" who, hours before Sunak announced the furlough scheme etc, told journalists that nothing would happen.
Masks up to 80-90 per cent. Not sure what has triggered this increase over recent weeks. Food bank bins full to overflowing, probably due to Ramadan. Cafe closing permanently this weekend. It often seems busy so I suspect this is a head office decision to get out of that business.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
After listening to the display of incoherence at PMQs, I think it unlikely that any Tory MP could be certain of what he said anyway.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
After listening to the display of incoherence at PMQs, I think it unlikely that any Tory MP could be certain of what he said anyway.
From his response and the point of order it seems he probably did bash the bishop in the terms claimed but what he said about the Beeb was just different enough to ground a denial
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
While you clearly think the wrong side won the Cold War, back here in the real world West Germany were spending 3% of GDP on Defence.
You clearly don't get (or want to get) where I'm coming from. I am against any foreign (or domestic come to that) power getting in the way of the British Government's duty to serve the interests of the British people. That includes Russia, America, the EU, the NUM, the NFU, corporate entities, anticapitalists, Greens, the Masons, the Girl Guides - wherever such an attempt comes from.
Needless to say, being controlled by the US is by some measure more tolerable than it would have been being controlled by a Communist Regime in the form of Soviet Russia. But that doesn't mean I don't aspire to a greater degree of sovereignty. The US fought an armed insurrection to rid themselves of British control - as a British person, I am not sure why I should be any happier to accept American control over my country than they were to accept British control over theirs.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
That's new information for me. I believed that their forces had had a reduced capacity since WW2. I am entirely comfortable with Germany not having a big military, and instead pursuing its desire to run Europe with Teutonic efficiency via political and economical means. I would even prefer EU forces to be built up than German ones, provided Britain is not somehow shoe-horned in.
Well, start by reading Wikipedia.
If you have any interest in military affairs in Europe, it seems surprising that you weren't aware of the huge German arms industry, which has been enthusiastically looking for new outlets since the German military scaled back so much. Anyone want to buy a U-Boat, brand new, nice stereo?
I'd rather read PB. It's taught me something I didn't know, and I am grateful to it (and you) for that.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
How many is that now, my abacus has run out of beads.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
This is the trouble, isn't it? It's difficult to be a good and effective PM if people know that every time you say something there's only a slim chance of it being the truth.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
That's new information for me. I believed that their forces had had a reduced capacity since WW2. I am entirely comfortable with Germany not having a big military, and instead pursuing its desire to run Europe with Teutonic efficiency via political and economical means. I would even prefer EU forces to be built up than German ones, provided Britain is not somehow shoe-horned in.
Well, start by reading Wikipedia.
If you have any interest in military affairs in Europe, it seems surprising that you weren't aware of the huge German arms industry, which has been enthusiastically looking for new outlets since the German military scaled back so much. Anyone want to buy a U-Boat, brand new, nice stereo?
I'd rather read PB. It's taught me something I didn't know, and I am grateful to it (and you) for that.
Incidentally, you may need smelling salts before you look up the Japanese military, these days. Disarmed, they are not.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
As ridiculous as the two women walking along (allowed) holding a coffee each (not allowed).
Them was the rules, as we all can't quite fucking believe now. And they were cheered on by plenty, including those here on the mighty PB.
They were indeed absurd and irrational. Only the common sense of most police officers in interpreting them judiciously (in the main) stopped them from falling into disrepute before they did.
Which rather brings home, once again, that the offence here is lying about it to the HoC. That is unacceptable.
It is an interesting point. Just like the two women with the coffee it is perfectly feasible that even the PM thought that a cake for a few minutes sprung on him couldn't possibly constitute a breach of the rules. So I get it that he genuinely thinks he didn't lie to the HoC.
But something is rotten about the process. Because he should have known so the answer to the question of whether he was a liar or an idiot is that he was the latter. And still gets cheered to the rafters by as @rottenborough notes the very MPs who voted for those rules.
In a way it is simpler than all of this - his fries are done. He isn't going to win the next election.
This isn't because he is or isn't guilty of breaching section 121.13.1 paragraph B.
It is because he partied in lockdown. That No10 was a non-stop conga line is now part of the non-political world - people make jokes about it in non-political conversation.
If he'd stuck to awkward Zoom quizzes, and told whoever produced the cake - "nice idea, but I can't" - then he would be fine.
But he didn't. So he isn't.
Yes, because everyone is trying to give the impression that there were conga lines around Downing St every night.
When what actually happened, is that Johnson was ambushed by a cake on his birthday, and his team who had been working together indoors all day, gathered outside for half an hour after work one evening.
It’s not the PM that’s lying here.
Note that where there were definitely conga lines is in hospitals - there’s loads of video evidence of it, it was celebrated at the time.
20 May 2020: “socially distanced drinks”; Johnson attended 18 Jun 2020: Hannah Young leaving drinks 19 Jun 2020: allegations of an evening birthday party for Johnson 13 Nov 2020: Lee Cain leaving drinks; Johnson attended also 13 Nov 2020: Carrie’s ABBA party 27 Nov 2020: Cleo Watson leaving drinks; Johnson attended 15 Dec 2020: Xmas quiz 17 Dec 2020: Simon Case’s team’s Xmas party also 17 Dec 2020: Steve Higham’s leaving do 18 Dec 2020: cheese and wine, reportedly went on until 2am 14 Jan 2021: another leaving do; Johnson attended 16 Apr 2021: the night before Philip’s funeral, two leaving parties that then combine and continue until 1am
The clip on the BBC (I didn't watch the main event) seems to have Boris stating that he was surprised that the policy designed to stop people drowning in the channel was being criticised and pointing out that David Blunkett suggested such a scheme in 2004. It doesn't contain any denial that he had been critical of the Archbishop at all. Indeed the implication is that he had been. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-61162969
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
They had fucktons of tanks, artillery, aircraft. If they had felt like round 3 with France it would have been a hell of a party.
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
That's new information for me. I believed that their forces had had a reduced capacity since WW2. I am entirely comfortable with Germany not having a big military, and instead pursuing its desire to run Europe with Teutonic efficiency via political and economical means. I would even prefer EU forces to be built up than German ones, provided Britain is not somehow shoe-horned in.
Well, start by reading Wikipedia.
If you have any interest in military affairs in Europe, it seems surprising that you weren't aware of the huge German arms industry, which has been enthusiastically looking for new outlets since the German military scaled back so much. Anyone want to buy a U-Boat, brand new, nice stereo?
I'd rather read PB. It's taught me something I didn't know, and I am grateful to it (and you) for that.
Incidentally, you may need smelling salts before you look up the Japanese military, these days. Disarmed, they are not.
I can't see the Japanese harbouring territorial ambitions concerning our rainy haven.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
I just think that this story illustrates brilliantly all that is wrong with modern politics, with everyone looking for a ‘gotcha’ rather than advancing arguments. I don’t even particularly like the guy, but it appears that I’m one of very few willing to defend him on this.
Consider the timeline here:
1.There was a story that on one day during the pandemic, a number of people who had been working together indoors all day, gathered outdoors at the end of a sunny day where their boss thanked them for their hard work. They were invited to bring their own refreshments.
2. This was a technical breach of the regulations in force at the time, which did not allow ‘non-work gatherings’.
3. The PM was asked in Parliament if there were any more such gatherings, to which he replied that there were not.
4. Someone then noted that, on his birthday 18 months earlier, when he was just out of hospital and recovering from Covid himself, his wife ambushed a meeting to present him with a cake for nine minutes.
5. On the basis of event 4, people are now saying that his response in 3 makes him a lying liar who needs to resign forthwith.
6. The media (who have had a terrible pandemic, including multiple actual parties of their own, mentioning no names Kay Burley), and his political opponents, think this is the most important thing going on in the world at the moment, to the point that the PM was reported to have considered cancelling an important trip to India taking place today. They are, with ever more hyperbolic language, saying that he’s a lying liar who should resign, and are hoping to keep the story running until the formal report on such incidents is released.
7. There is, as with anything in politics at the moment, a strong Brexit-related undercurrent to all this, especially within the media. They are continuing to report poor economic data such as inflation, as if it were exclusively a British issue, when the whole developed world is seeing the same problems.
There’s many things on which I have and would criticise the PM, but this whole politically-motivated charade definitely isn’t one of them.
You are trashing your own credibility as comprehensively as Boris has trashed his.
Although I disagree with @Sandpit he isn't one who blindly follows a party line so it is useful to hear a counter argument from someone who isn't a sheep. I must admit I have posted a few things that haven't attracted universal favour.
Ok, but when it gets to the point of pointing out that water is wet....
Except that water isn't wet. Water makes things wet...
Congratulations on winning today's PB Pedantry award, Applicant.
I don't think people fully appreciate just how much, after invading Ukraine, people are hacking Russia. There are multiple hacks a week and it's only increasing. For first time in internet history Russia is fair game for cyber attacks, and this is what it looks like 🧵 https://mobile.twitter.com/micahflee/status/1516521193808875527
Problem is they really need Russian speakers to make best use of all this data.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
I just think that this story illustrates brilliantly all that is wrong with modern politics, with everyone looking for a ‘gotcha’ rather than advancing arguments. I don’t even particularly like the guy, but it appears that I’m one of very few willing to defend him on this.
Consider the timeline here:
1.There was a story that on one day during the pandemic, a number of people who had been working together indoors all day, gathered outdoors at the end of a sunny day where their boss thanked them for their hard work. They were invited to bring their own refreshments.
2. This was a technical breach of the regulations in force at the time, which did not allow ‘non-work gatherings’.
3. The PM was asked in Parliament if there were any more such gatherings, to which he replied that there were not.
4. Someone then noted that, on his birthday 18 months earlier, when he was just out of hospital and recovering from Covid himself, his wife ambushed a meeting to present him with a cake for nine minutes.
5. On the basis of event 4, people are now saying that his response in 3 makes him a lying liar who needs to resign forthwith.
6. The media (who have had a terrible pandemic, including multiple actual parties of their own, mentioning no names Kay Burley), and his political opponents, think this is the most important thing going on in the world at the moment, to the point that the PM was reported to have considered cancelling an important trip to India taking place today. They are, with ever more hyperbolic language, saying that he’s a lying liar who should resign, and are hoping to keep the story running until the formal report on such incidents is released.
7. There is, as with anything in politics at the moment, a strong Brexit-related undercurrent to all this, especially within the media. They are continuing to report poor economic data such as inflation, as if it were exclusively a British issue, when the whole developed world is seeing the same problems.
There’s many things on which I have and would criticise the PM, but this whole politically-motivated charade definitely isn’t one of them.
You are trashing your own credibility as comprehensively as Boris has trashed his.
Although I disagree with @Sandpit he isn't one who blindly follows a party line so it is useful to hear a counter argument from someone who isn't a sheep. I must admit I have posted a few things that haven't attracted universal favour.
Ok, but when it gets to the point of pointing out that water is wet....
Except that water isn't wet. Water makes things wet...
Congratulations on winning today's PB Pedantry award, Applicant.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
This is the trouble, isn't it? It's difficult to be a good and effective PM if people know that every time you say something there's only a slim chance of it being the truth.
Though all the other numerous barriers to BJ being a good and effective PM should never be forgotten.
The Labor [sic] Party accuses the government of being too weak on border protection:
@AustralianLabor Let’s be clear: if you attempt to come to Australia by boat, you will not make it
Labor supports OSB– offshore processing, regional resettlement & boat turn-backs where safe to do so, but for years Labor has warned Mr Morrison has put border protection on ‘set and forget’ mode
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
After listening to the display of incoherence at PMQs, I think it unlikely that any Tory MP could be certain of what he said anyway.
OK, nobody got rich betting on the end of Boris. And it's in nobody's interest to the the one who tells him that the game is up.
But he can't carry on like this- for his sake as much as anyone else's. Can he?
The Premiership breaks everyone in the end, by finding and exploiting their weakness. But this is spectacular.
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
Conservative mp on a point of order has just said that the leader of the opposition comments about the BBC were not said at the meeting he was present at last night and requires the leader of the opposition to retract his comment
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
yes.
there was one point where it was legal for six people to sing in a pub but if a seventh joined in, that broke the law.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
Has Carrie apologised to anybody yet?
She seems to have become a bit of a shrinking violet lately, which is not, I understand, her usual demeanor.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
Has Carrie apologised to anybody yet?
She seems to have become a bit of a shrinking violet lately, which is not, I understand, her usual demeanor.
She received an FPN and put out a statement accepting the fine and apologising. I don’t know if she’s said anything in person…?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Yes, the rules were difficult to interpret and follow literally which is why on a number of occasions I just used my common sense, and so did others I knew. For example, when MrsPtP contracted Covid whilst staying in London I drove down to look after her and take care of the dog who was with her at the time. I'm pretty sure this broke the rules but it made sense and was not inimical to the substance of the regulations.
You can't say that about Boris and his flouting of them. It's as plain as birthday cake that they were playing fast and loose with the law and for no good reason other than they thought they werre above it.
It's hardly surprising there were so many Covid cases in and around Downing Street at the time. They were just not applying the same level of caution as most of the public were managing. The consequences were damaging and real. Boris and his crew deserve all the shit they are getting.
Comments
The reason they haven't is pandering to your beloved Russia and chasing money, not because we or the Americans don't want them to.
West Germany was spending 3% of GDP on defence until the end of the Cold War.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Boris out, Keir in, before the country caves in.
@JohnRentoul
·
1m
PM almost begs Starmer to ask about something else
@JohnRentoul
·
1m
PM losing the House – artificial whips’ cries of “More!” Can’t save him
@DPJHodges
·
2m
This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
Not sure what you're referring to with 3 digit userids.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
https://www.prosecutionservice.nl/topics/mh17-plane-crash/criminal-investigation-jit-mh17
EDIT: for example, in the early 80s, the Germans had 4000+ tanks. 5000+ if you counted some tank destroyers....
But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
I assume Labour have wargamed how they will deal with a new leader in the autumn as there is at least the small possibility that Tory MPs will finally do the right thing after May.
Apologies. See I was beaten to it by some distance.
@TalkTV
·
57m
Tory MP and ex Chief Whip Mark Harper tells Julia Boris Johnson broke his own rules and that "if you mislead Parliament, you have to resign".
"If you're the Prime Minister, you have a duty to be the role model citizen in following them to the letter."
https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1516724891940265984
Swanny Al 🇬🇧🇪🇺🇺🇦
@SwannyAl
·
15m
Replying to
@janemerrick23
Didn't Johnson live in Islington for quite a few years?
iucounu
@iucounu
·
13m
yes, a five-storey, Grade 2-listed, £3.5m house
@DPJHodges
·
6m
Every major news outlet reported the Prime Minister's comments criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC. Did they all make it up. Or did whoever briefed them make it up. Or did Boris just lie again.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1516739154461315075
===
As @dixiedean says we can be pretty sure where the betting on this lies.
2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
But it's more likely Johnson is lying.
@stephenkb
·
20m
The technical quality isn't as good as Cameron-Miliband but the obvious, personal and mutual hatred between Johnson-Starmer really elevates it as a PMQs hatred.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1516737424092717056
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/20/man-admits-posting-offensive-video-of-grenfell-tower-model-on-bonfire
A man has been sentenced to 10 weeks, suspended for two years, after admitting sending a “grossly offensive” viral video of a cardboard model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.
Paul Bussetti, 49, from Croydon, south London, pleaded guilty to one count when he appeared at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday.
Bussetti was previously found not guilty after a two-day trial but the acquittal was quashed by the high court.
In fairness, they have a bit of a point. Freezing the thick end of £600bn of foreign currency and then having a default because they don't have access to it doesn't seem exactly cricket. But then, neither was Bucha so tough.
Keir Starmer (LAB): 41% (+5)
Boris Johnson (CON): 34% (-1)
via
@DeltapollUK
, 13-14 Apr
(Changes with 4 Feb)
These are landslide numbers
Relatedly, one the stranger criticisms of the Archbishop is of "virtue signalling" Virtue signalling is his job.
If you have any interest in military affairs in Europe, it seems surprising that you weren't aware of the huge German arms industry, which has been enthusiastically looking for new outlets since the German military scaled back so much. Anyone want to buy a U-Boat, brand new, nice stereo?
It's all to play for, for both parties. Opposition in lead during midterms is what normally happens, anyone who counts chickens now or pays too much attention either way to the polls now is just silly.
And yes I'd say the same if the numbers were reversed. I did say the same when they were.
There were multiple events Boris was at, there were multiple further events Boris appears to have had some knowledge of, and further events he should’ve known about. Wikipedia lists 20 different events (15 at No. 10; 5 elsewhere in Westminster). The police have handed out over 50 FPNs. Yet he stood up in Parliament and said all rules were followed. He could’ve easily caveated what he said at the time (“I know everyone in Downing Street was working hard. I believe we were all trying our best to follow the rules, but I’ll have the Chief of Staff look into it.”). But lying seems to come naturally to him.
Thinking of the "confidential source" who, hours before Sunak announced the furlough scheme etc, told journalists that nothing would happen.
Unless, of course the "sources" were fictional.
Masks up to 80-90 per cent. Not sure what has triggered this increase over recent weeks.
Food bank bins full to overflowing, probably due to Ramadan.
Cafe closing permanently this weekend. It often seems busy so I suspect this is a head office decision to get out of that business.
Needless to say, being controlled by the US is by some measure more tolerable than it would have been being controlled by a Communist Regime in the form of Soviet Russia. But that doesn't mean I don't aspire to a greater degree of sovereignty. The US fought an armed insurrection to rid themselves of British control - as a British person, I am not sure why I should be any happier to accept American control over my country than they were to accept British control over theirs.
Vanda Obedkova's daughter&her husband risked lives to bury her amid🇷🇺shelling in a park near Azov Sea
Born in Mariupol. In 1941 she evaded arrest hiding in a basement
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1516735832429940736
18 Jun 2020: Hannah Young leaving drinks
19 Jun 2020: allegations of an evening birthday party for Johnson
13 Nov 2020: Lee Cain leaving drinks; Johnson attended
also 13 Nov 2020: Carrie’s ABBA party
27 Nov 2020: Cleo Watson leaving drinks; Johnson attended
15 Dec 2020: Xmas quiz
17 Dec 2020: Simon Case’s team’s Xmas party
also 17 Dec 2020: Steve Higham’s leaving do
18 Dec 2020: cheese and wine, reportedly went on until 2am
14 Jan 2021: another leaving do; Johnson attended
16 Apr 2021: the night before Philip’s funeral, two leaving parties that then combine and continue until 1am
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-61162969
Maybe there was another question.
That’s not meant to be a trite point, it’s an observable fact.
https://mobile.twitter.com/micahflee/status/1516521193808875527
Problem is they really need Russian speakers to make best use of all this data.
@AustralianLabor
Let’s be clear: if you attempt to come to Australia by boat, you will not make it
Labor supports OSB– offshore processing, regional resettlement & boat turn-backs where safe to do so, but for years Labor has warned Mr Morrison has put border protection on ‘set and forget’ mode
https://twitter.com/AustralianLabor/status/1516709601521012741
A true Bufton Tufton
But he can't carry on like this- for his sake as much as anyone else's. Can he?
The Premiership breaks everyone in the end, by finding and exploiting their weakness. But this is spectacular.
Sorry a bit slow there
there was one point where it was legal for six people to sing in a pub but if a seventh joined in, that broke the law.
"Phone at 8am, has to be a same day appointment, you can't choose which slot you get"
"Rising Covid infections"
I have an uber-flexible job and even I've got no chance with this system.
She seems to have become a bit of a shrinking violet lately, which is not, I understand, her usual demeanor.
https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1516751127726940163
(Mainly why NOT LePen)
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
You can't say that about Boris and his flouting of them. It's as plain as birthday cake that they were playing fast and loose with the law and for no good reason other than they thought they werre above it.
It's hardly surprising there were so many Covid cases in and around Downing Street at the time. They were just not applying the same level of caution as most of the public were managing. The consequences were damaging and real. Boris and his crew deserve all the shit they are getting.