Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A UK recession in 2022? – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They ought to from an pragmatic point of view. But you're right in your implication that it won't happen.
    There is real danger here for the Conservatives too, and the smarter ones recognise that.

    Sadly, the only people I see who are not in a position to lose from this whole thing is the far left. I don't think they'll get back in either, but it's a scalp and emboldening. I do not want them back. We were half way back to some sensible politics. Let's not get dragged back to 2019.
    I think that Starmer could, if he played his cards right and if he is stuffed by this, pull BJ down with him.

    Just resigning would set up a narrative that he was somehow *worse* than BJ - something that BJs allies would be selling very hard.

    Early days yet in this one, though.
    If Starmer resigns he is history. His career is over. The problem goes away for Labour and the ball is back on Johnson's side of the net.

    That is not to say Labour won't be badly damaged for the medium term.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187

    Final result from Croydon
    Lab 34
    Con 32
    Green 2
    Ld 1
    With one Ward to be refought as the new mayor won it, so likely Tory.
    Croydon is NOC and Labour have zero council gains net in London

    The interesting thing about NOC councils is where the control actually goes. There is always a group in control even if they come from several parties.
    With the Tory mayor they'd need 2/3 to overturn most stuff he does so they can either lead a dead horse administration with the greens or let the Tories run it and take the hit for the appalling state of finances going
    Forward given the bankruptcy
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    edited May 8
    MaxPB said:

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    No, if he gets a FPN my gut feeling is that he will brazen it out as "not as bad as the PM" and "didn't think what we did was wrong" and give some kind of apology.

    Yep. No way he gives up a shot at being PM on the basis of curry and beers. He will somehow fix it in his own head that it’s all OK

    He will be severely and probably permanently damaged, however. Because the hypocrisy stinks: it will be worse than Boris

    If he surprises on the upside and resigns, then I doff my cap and I will eat my words
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    It’s surreal , some Tories in here think Johnson can just sit back and relax if Starmer resigns.

    They also seem to think Johnson can survive further FPNs and just swan around acting as if this doesn’t matter . That shamelessness is some cloak of invincibility.

    And that the public will sit there and say fine keep taking the piss out of us .
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896
    edited May 8

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    If you look at a list of Johnson's misdemeanours from Owen Patterson on there are about ten that dwarf Partygate (listed below). Even with an FPN Starmer doesn't come close to even the lesser ones like Wallpapergate.

    Why you think in this climate Starmer should resign is baffling. Of course he should hold himself to higher standards than Johnson but that should be part of his defence. No one is expecting Mother Superior and he's already considered more honest than Johnson.

    If they find nothing (which I believe will be the case) then his position is strengthened. He can take the gloves off and come out fighting. Then he can really take Johnson apart.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-prime-minister-leader-mistakes-gaffes-iran-libya-muslims-europe-sacked-a9016666.html
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited May 8
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
    You really hate this “Sean” character. He doesn’t sound very nice AT ALL. Ugh!
    I don’t hate you Sean. I feel sorry for you. You are in a bad place.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,025

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They ought to from an pragmatic point of view. But you're right in your implication that it won't happen.
    There is real danger here for the Conservatives too, and the smarter ones recognise that.

    Sadly, the only people I see who are not in a position to lose from this whole thing is the far left. I don't think they'll get back in either, but it's a scalp and emboldening. I do not want them back. We were half way back to some sensible politics. Let's not get dragged back to 2019.
    I think that Starmer could, if he played his cards right and if he is stuffed by this, pull BJ down with him.

    Just resigning would set up a narrative that he was somehow *worse* than BJ - something that BJs allies would be selling very hard.

    Early days yet in this one, though.
    If Starmer resigns he is history. His career is over. The problem goes away for Labour and the ball is back on Johnson's side of the net.

    That is not to say Labour won't be badly damaged for the medium term.
    Starmer is going to struggle to hang on in that it seems his whole party is assuming he's gone. I think it's a bit weird.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    edited May 8
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    HYUFD said:

    Final result from Croydon
    Lab 34
    Con 32
    Green 2
    Ld 1
    With one Ward to be refought as the new mayor won it, so likely Tory.
    Croydon is NOC and Labour have zero council gains net in London

    They gained 3 from the Tories though and the Tories only gained 1 from them, Harrow
    Correct
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,025

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
    You really hate this “Sean” character. He doesn’t sound very nice AT ALL. Ugh!
    I don’t hate you Sean. I feel sorry for you. You are in a bad place.
    Leon - you didn't tell us you were visiting the Scottish parliament ! :)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    No, if he gets a FPN my gut feeling is that he will brazen it out as "not as bad as the PM" and "didn't think what we did was wrong" and give some kind of apology.

    Yep. No way he gives up a shot at being PM on the basis of curry and beers. He will somehow fix it in his own head that it’s all OK

    He will be severely and probably permanently damaged, however. Because the hypocrisy stinks: it will be worse than Boris

    If he surprises on the upside and resigns, then I doff my cap and I will eat my words
    His shot at being PM is over, FPN or no FPN. He staked the house on Partygate.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,287
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,580
    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Surely all MPs who voted for the emergency powers and the laws drafted under them are responsible for them? I think Starmer is just as responsible, and indeed often begged the Government to go further.

    Personally I don't think either Starmer or Boris should go over these trivialities - I think Starmer should go because he is an over-promoted non-entity with no charisma or political judgement and has no idea how to improve the economy. And Boris should go, if there is a better replacement, because he broke pledges on taxes and has no idea how to improve the economy (though the vaccine programme, his performance on Ukraine and implementing the will of the people stand to his credit).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,117

    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
    You really hate this “Sean” character. He doesn’t sound very nice AT ALL. Ugh!
    I don’t hate you Sean. I feel sorry for you. You are in a bad place.

    "How will this end?"
    "In fire"


    image
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Even though by 2021 there were enough Tories opposed to the stupid laws that they needed SKS's support for them to pass?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829
    edited May 8
    Fishing said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Surely all MPs who voted for the emergency powers and the laws drafted under them are responsible for them? I think Starmer is just as responsible, and indeed often begged the Government to go further.

    Personally I don't think either Starmer or Boris should go over these trivialities - I think Starmer should go because he is an over-promoted non-entity with no charisma or political judgement and has no idea how to improve the economy. And Boris should go, if there is a better replacement, because he broke pledges on taxes and has no idea how to improve the economy (though the vaccine programme, his performance on Ukraine and implementing the will of the people stand to his credit).
    Starmer in particular was always on the hawk side of Covid, I.e. for more restrictions and not for lifting them too soon. Ironic really as the time of his offence many of us were clamouring for a faster lifting to get the economy going again.
    You know who wasn’t?
    Starmer.
    #petardgate
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MattW said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Rowenna Davis has been elected in Waddon / Croydon.

    Potential candidate for next General Election, perhaps.
    PPE from Baliol. Surely she's in the wrong party.
    Roy Jenkins did PPE at Balliol as did Yvette Cooper, the only senior Tory to do so was Ted Heath
    Seem to recall a time when Rowenna Davis was never off political tv shows. Was that back in the Miliband era?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    edited May 8
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    It's something the rest of us didn't or couldn't do and didn't spend weeks lying about or trying to excuse as 'within the rules' - we had all the it was within the rules bullshit over expenses
    Number 10 have been rule ignoring arrogant arseholes, Labour and Starmer are being disgusting little snakes
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    Applicant said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Even though by 2021 there were enough Tories opposed to the stupid laws that they needed SKS's support for them to pass?
    Indeed, it was Keir that allowed the government to put these laws in place again, the laws he may have fallen foul of.

    He deserves to be hoist by his own petard as much as Boris, more so IMO as he was in the position to ally with the dissident Tories and strike the idiotic laws down and get the nation out of lockdown month earlier.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,287
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    Were we not discussing the book 'Courtesans and fishcakes' about the role of fish in ancient Greek culture, at one point, some years back?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,117

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    The politics of beergate are complex. It's clearly bad news for Starmer, but I suspect it's bad news for Boris as well.

    If the police clear Starmer, which is possible, then he will claim he's done nothing wrong, as he said from the start. He then goes back on the attack over Boris's 'criminality'.
    If the police fine Starmer, then he'll probably resign. So what does Boris do then - stay on?
    I don't see how either scenario is good for Boris - quite the opposite. Starmer being in trouble is good for the Tories, of course - but not for Boris.

    No, if he gets a FPN my gut feeling is that he will brazen it out as "not as bad as the PM" and "didn't think what we did was wrong" and give some kind of apology.

    Yep. No way he gives up a shot at being PM on the basis of curry and beers. He will somehow fix it in his own head that it’s all OK

    He will be severely and probably permanently damaged, however. Because the hypocrisy stinks: it will be worse than Boris

    If he surprises on the upside and resigns, then I doff my cap and I will eat my words
    His shot at being PM is over, FPN or no FPN. He staked the house on Partygate.
    If he gets a FPN it is certainly over. Unless he takes it to court he will have to resign immediately.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    Has = ought. But is it "will"? Mr Johnson is shameless enough to take it as a personal vindication.
    Yes, I don't follow the logic here. The parliamentary party has already decided Boris being fined is not something that means he should resign, or even face a challenge over. They've gone all in on how it is time to move on and he has apologised, all that guff.

    Say Keir is fined and falls on his sword, how do those same MPs react? Possibly with some embarrassment, but his choosing to resign doesn't alter the defences they've already given Boris. Are they about to stand up and say 'I congratulate Sir Keir for his honourable stance, and so I am changing my mind about the PM'? Is Boris going to do that?
    They ought to from an pragmatic point of view. But you're right in your implication that it won't happen.
    There is real danger here for the Conservatives too, and the smarter ones recognise that.

    Sadly, the only people I see who are not in a position to lose from this whole thing is the far left. I don't think they'll get back in either, but it's a scalp and emboldening. I do not want them back. We were half way back to some sensible politics. Let's not get dragged back to 2019.
    I think that Starmer could, if he played his cards right and if he is stuffed by this, pull BJ down with him.

    Just resigning would set up a narrative that he was somehow *worse* than BJ - something that BJs allies would be selling very hard.

    Early days yet in this one, though.
    If Starmer resigns he is history. His career is over. The problem goes away for Labour and the ball is back on Johnson's side of the net.

    That is not to say Labour won't be badly damaged for the medium term.
    Scottish Labour would be horrified. Banjaxed just as they were on an uptick.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,287

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    It's something the rest of us didn't or couldn't do and didn't spend weeks lying about or trying to excuse as 'within the rules' - we had all the it was within the rules bullshit over expenses
    Number 10 have been rule ignoring arrogant arseholes, Labour are Starmer are being disgusting little snakes
    But going out for a curry was what Mr S did not do. It didn't happen. So one doesn;t even get as far as seeing if the rules fit.

    Now Mr J going to the pub ... if Applicant thinks that is a killer, then ...
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    It’s surreal , some Tories in here think Johnson can just sit back and relax if Starmer resigns.

    They also seem to think Johnson can survive further FPNs and just swan around acting as if this doesn’t matter . That shamelessness is some cloak of invincibility.

    And that the public will sit there and say fine keep taking the piss out of us .
    Most of the Tories here have been saying for months that Boris should resign.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,478
    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Thats not the way it is going to work though. Boris is going to get away with his breaches because of his political style. Starmer is potentially going to be destroyed.

    For what it is worth, I would guess that Starmer will just fight it out through the courts rather than accepting a PCN - hasn't the conviction rate been pathetic anyway?

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    Were we not discussing the book 'Courtesans and fishcakes' about the role of fish in ancient Greek culture, at one point, some years back?
    He’s more interested in the courtesans than the fishcakes.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    This is where Italy holds an advantage over the rest of the Med. The food in small towns is far and away the best of the beach countries. It's a shame they've gone down the COVID rules forever route, hopefully by September when the baby is old enough for us to travel they'll have seen the light, would love for Italy to be the baby's first overseas holiday!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Roger said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    If you look at a list of Johnson's misdemeanours from Owen Patterson on there are about ten that dwarf Partygate (listed below). Even with an FPN Starmer doesn't come close to even the lesser ones like Wallpapergate.

    Why you think in this climate Starmer should resign is baffling. Of course he should hold himself to higher standards than Johnson but that should be part of his defence. No one is expecting Mother Superior and he's already considered more honest than Johnson.

    If they find nothing (which I believe will be the case) then his position is strengthened. He can take the gloves off and come out fighting. Then he can really take Johnson apart.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-prime-minister-leader-mistakes-gaffes-iran-libya-muslims-europe-sacked-a9016666.html
    Come on Roger, you are being very naïve.

    You and I both think one or no FPNs for an event that is just over or under the rules of the day is substantially less troubling than Johnson's involvement in up to a dozen slam-dunk parties. The UK media will swear blind it is to the contrary.

    It may be bad luck borne out of a Team Johnson backed media witch hunt, but he finds himself castigated as worse than Johnson, and as such he has to go in order to assist in getting rid of Johnson.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    The mighty arsenals of both sides are likely mostly phoney. As are the absurd claims of nation killers and super torpedo mega death nonsense. And that's before we get into the black budget star wars programs that likely make ICBMs useless anyway
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    You don't feel that Prime Ministers should be held to a higher standard too, especially when they write the laws that they break?

    Not when Starmer has gone so hard on Boris HAVING TO RESIGN as soon as he got a FPN, and especially not when Starmer was calling for even harder, longer lockdowns, even as he thought it was fine to get pissed and have curry with 30 workmates
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    It's something the rest of us didn't or couldn't do and didn't spend weeks lying about or trying to excuse as 'within the rules' - we had all the it was within the rules bullshit over expenses
    Number 10 have been rule ignoring arrogant arseholes, Labour are Starmer are being disgusting little snakes
    But going out for a curry was what Mr S did not do. It didn't happen. So one doesn;t even get as far as seeing if the rules fit.

    Now Mr J going to the pub ... if Applicant thinks that is a killer, then ...
    No, they had a jolly with 30 of them ordering booze and takeout rather than going home and ordering takeout or going to their hotel and ordering takeout or doing any of the legal things they could have done to avoid having an indoor gathering of 30. And they pre planned it. It was not impromptu. It was not within the spirit or letter of the rules they decided to impose on us proles 'for our health'
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,434

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    Did he actually say "as Prime Minister", I assume he did since it's in quotation marks.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,434
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    You don't feel that Prime Ministers should be held to a higher standard too, especially when they write the laws that they break?

    Not when Starmer has gone so hard on Boris HAVING TO RESIGN as soon as he got a FPN, and especially not when Starmer was calling for even harder, longer lockdowns, even as he thought it was fine to get pissed and have curry with 30 workmates
    The mere investigation was sufficient, he didn't wait until the FPN was issued.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697
    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    Were we not discussing the book 'Courtesans and fishcakes' about the role of fish in ancient Greek culture, at one point, some years back?
    We were. A splendid book, IIRC
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    If Starmer tries to stay on some lawyerly reading of his own words it's mana from heaven for CCHQ. I think he will brazen it out and just make some non apology the same as Boris but if he tries to go "well actually if you listen to index 1:24 of my speech you'll hear me say he should resign as PM and I'm not the PM so it doesn't apply to me" it would be hilarious how quickly Labour fall in the polls.
  • PensfoldPensfold Posts: 191
    Are the Durham police using the same criteria to decide the fixed price penalty in Lockdown as the Metropolitan police?

    The Met's decision re the birthday cake did seem harsh given the 10 minute period and that it is common practice in offices for a cake interlude on someone's birtthday. Boris should have found one of those who got a fixed penalth at that event to challenge it at Crown Court because if they won then everyone's FPN would have been retracted.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,728
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Thats not the way it is going to work though. Boris is going to get away with his breaches because of his political style. Starmer is potentially going to be destroyed.

    For what it is worth, I would guess that Starmer will just fight it out through the courts rather than accepting a PCN - hasn't the conviction rate been pathetic anyway?

    That is the interesting consideration, Starmer would win but it would be hanging over his head for many months or even years. Would innocent until proven guilty be viable? It should be but pragmatically in the eyes of the public it probably is not.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896
    Lisa Nandy is an excellent advocate for Starmer. She's saying all the right things. Lets hope she puts a little backbone in those supporters who are suggesting he resigns because The Mail want him to
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,645

    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.

    Not good but not as bad as that as these last contested when May was in charge and Labour did well in 2018
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    This is where Italy holds an advantage over the rest of the Med. The food in small towns is far and away the best of the beach countries. It's a shame they've gone down the COVID rules forever route, hopefully by September when the baby is old enough for us to travel they'll have seen the light, would love for Italy to be the baby's first overseas holiday!
    Isn’t your baby due super soon? Or has it arrived?

    You described yourself calmly making home made naan bread just now, so I doubt you have a 3 day old bambino in the house…
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    If Starmer tries to stay on some lawyerly reading of his own words it's mana from heaven for CCHQ. I think he will brazen it out and just make some non apology the same as Boris but if he tries to go "well actually if you listen to index 1:24 of my speech you'll hear me say he should resign as PM and I'm not the PM so it doesn't apply to me" it would be hilarious how quickly Labour fall in the polls.
    He's already on thin ice with the 'I only stole one apple the other boy stole three' weasalling
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    Well done! I believe you came close.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    It's something the rest of us didn't or couldn't do and didn't spend weeks lying about or trying to excuse as 'within the rules' - we had all the it was within the rules bullshit over expenses
    Number 10 have been rule ignoring arrogant arseholes, Labour are Starmer are being disgusting little snakes
    But going out for a curry was what Mr S did not do. It didn't happen. So one doesn;t even get as far as seeing if the rules fit.

    Now Mr J going to the pub ... if Applicant thinks that is a killer, then ...
    No, they had a jolly with 30 of them ordering booze and takeout rather than going home and ordering takeout or going to their hotel and ordering takeout or doing any of the legal things they could have done to avoid having an indoor gathering of 30. And they pre planned it. It was not impromptu. It was not within the spirit or letter of the rules they decided to impose on us proles 'for our health'
    Very much within the letter of the rules as its specifically allowed. The spirit? No - and had the Tories gone after the "should not" guidelines and said Labour were pushing the boundaries then I would have some sympathy. Instead they post stupid like "the hotels were closed" and post screen grabs of guidelines saying "these make it illegal".
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,938
    I don't think Starmer will get a fine and if he does I don't think he'll resign. Why the 1st? Because I don't think he broke the law. Why the 2nd? Multiple reasons -

    Johnson has established the precedent by not resigning for the same offence plus much much more inc lying to parliament. The Tories have rubber stamped this by not removing him. Thus they can't pressurize Starmer to go. Starmer has a good shot at becoming PM of the United Kingdom quite soon. It'd take something massive to make him walk away from that opportunity and this is not it imo. It's trivial.

    That said, a fine would be bad news because it blunts partygate as a line of attack.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    This is where Italy holds an advantage over the rest of the Med. The food in small towns is far and away the best of the beach countries. It's a shame they've gone down the COVID rules forever route, hopefully by September when the baby is old enough for us to travel they'll have seen the light, would love for Italy to be the baby's first overseas holiday!
    Isn’t your baby due super soon? Or has it arrived?

    You described yourself calmly making home made naan bread just now, so I doubt you have a 3 day old bambino in the house…
    Yeah just 4 weeks left but really could come at any point. Given our history of miscarriages we've been extra careful about not buying anything for the baby or doing the nursery in case we jinx it so we've got a lot of last minute work to do.

    Also in other news my wife has finally come around to not going to Switzerland for at least 3-4 years until the kid needs to start school. We've also decided that our household will be dual language, English and Italian which we both speak and if we move to Switzerland I think we'd go to Lugano or Ticino and we'd just work remotely.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,117

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    The mighty arsenals of both sides are likely mostly phoney. As are the absurd claims of nation killers and super torpedo mega death nonsense. And that's before we get into the black budget star wars programs that likely make ICBMs useless anyway
    The American arsenal is well verified. As is the UK one.

    "black budget star wars programs" don't exist. There is some missile defence capability - SM-3 and the rest - but the technology for a full missile defence system isn't there yet. Free electron lasers are progressing, but we are a way off, there.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,350

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    So, you're saying the best performance was from a wishy washy centrist party whose leader has had a charisma bypass operation?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697

    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.

    Not good but not as bad as that as these last contested when May was in charge and Labour did well in 2018
    But the key point is that this Labour performance is nowhere near good enough to set them up for Lab Maj. It is not even close to the ballpark.

    The outcome of the next GE is either NOM or Con Maj. Labour have fluffed it.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    If Starmer tries to stay on some lawyerly reading of his own words it's mana from heaven for CCHQ. I think he will brazen it out and just make some non apology the same as Boris but if he tries to go "well actually if you listen to index 1:24 of my speech you'll hear me say he should resign as PM and I'm not the PM so it doesn't apply to me" it would be hilarious how quickly Labour fall in the polls.
    Naah. If they slap an FPN on he will go. But your point about Labour falling in the polls - vs whom? You think the Tories would benefit as Johnson gets slapped with more FPNs and the Grey report sticks all those photos out there?

    Even the Wail won't be able to resist joining in the witch hunt.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 357

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,742
    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    If Starmer tries to stay on some lawyerly reading of his own words it's mana from heaven for CCHQ. I think he will brazen it out and just make some non apology the same as Boris but if he tries to go "well actually if you listen to index 1:24 of my speech you'll hear me say he should resign as PM and I'm not the PM so it doesn't apply to me" it would be hilarious how quickly Labour fall in the polls.
    If Starmer gets a FPN he’s gone . I don’t see any way he continues . If Tory MPs want to keep finding excuses for why Johnson should stay on that might hit a brick wall if he gets another FPN.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.

    Not good but not as bad as that as these last contested when May was in charge and Labour did well in 2018
    So the narrative changes yet again. Disappointing but could be worse for the Tories, to ach no disastrous for the Tories, to “er, look at Labour WTF that’s poor”

    Maybe it’s best for them if Starmer goes

    “Others” actually did better than Labour
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    RobD said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    Did he actually say "as Prime Minister", I assume he did since it's in quotation marks.
    He's called repeated for Johnson's resignation. What role do you think he was to resign from?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,694
    OK - both on and off topic: on May 17th in London I am giving a TED-style talk and then participating in a panel on ..... drum roll ....

    "Protecting Your Culture by Rooting Out Bad Actors".

    For people In Compliance generally in a range of sectors - not just banks but also pharma etc. Anyway it's a day long thing with other stuff going on & registration is free so if anyone is professionally interested VM please and I can pass on details.

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,936
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Thats not the way it is going to work though. Boris is going to get away with his breaches because of his political style. Starmer is potentially going to be destroyed.

    For what it is worth, I would guess that Starmer will just fight it out through the courts rather than accepting a PCN - hasn't the conviction rate been pathetic anyway?

    The whole debate strikes me as the biggest mountain out of the smallest molehill in history. As I say, I care about Boris (a bit) because he made the stupid law in the first place. Otherwise I could not give a toss.

    I am struggling to understand how korma-gate destroys Starmer. I can't think of a voter who was firmly in the Labour camp, who has looked at Starmer's curry and gone "well, I was going to vote for that nice Mr Starmer, but now he's a pointless-rule-breacher, I'm going to vote for that other pointless-rule-breacher Mr Johnson instead"

    All the debate does for me is serves to remind me how wrong and pointless the lockdown rules were. And that is on Johnson and his government (though I do accept State Go Away's point, that Starmer also approved them).
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    It's something the rest of us didn't or couldn't do and didn't spend weeks lying about or trying to excuse as 'within the rules' - we had all the it was within the rules bullshit over expenses
    Number 10 have been rule ignoring arrogant arseholes, Labour are Starmer are being disgusting little snakes
    But going out for a curry was what Mr S did not do. It didn't happen. So one doesn;t even get as far as seeing if the rules fit.

    Now Mr J going to the pub ... if Applicant thinks that is a killer, then ...
    No, they had a jolly with 30 of them ordering booze and takeout rather than going home and ordering takeout or going to their hotel and ordering takeout or doing any of the legal things they could have done to avoid having an indoor gathering of 30. And they pre planned it. It was not impromptu. It was not within the spirit or letter of the rules they decided to impose on us proles 'for our health'
    Very much within the letter of the rules as its specifically allowed. The spirit? No - and had the Tories gone after the "should not" guidelines and said Labour were pushing the boundaries then I would have some sympathy. Instead they post stupid like "the hotels were closed" and post screen grabs of guidelines saying "these make it illegal".
    It depends on whether curry and booze for 30 at the end of the working day advertised in advance as dinner with the local MP is essential for work purposes. Attendees suggest it was not.
    I don't care either way, it's just another establishment arsehole taking the piss out of us. He deserves nothing but derision and scorn. He's not alone.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,896
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,434

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    If Starmer tries to stay on some lawyerly reading of his own words it's mana from heaven for CCHQ. I think he will brazen it out and just make some non apology the same as Boris but if he tries to go "well actually if you listen to index 1:24 of my speech you'll hear me say he should resign as PM and I'm not the PM so it doesn't apply to me" it would be hilarious how quickly Labour fall in the polls.
    Naah. If they slap an FPN on he will go. But your point about Labour falling in the polls - vs whom? You think the Tories would benefit as Johnson gets slapped with more FPNs and the Grey report sticks all those photos out there?

    Even the Wail won't be able to resist joining in the witch hunt.
    They don't necessarily have to get a benefit. If Labour likelihood to vote dropped from an average of (say) 80% to 70%, what do you think that would do to the headline voting intention?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,434

    RobD said:

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    Did he actually say "as Prime Minister", I assume he did since it's in quotation marks.
    He's called repeated for Johnson's resignation. What role do you think he was to resign from?
    From all of them, from public life all together? Hard to know because he wasn't as specific as you claimed.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    Roger said:

    Lisa Nandy is an excellent advocate for Starmer. She's saying all the right things. Lets hope she puts a little backbone in those supporters who are suggesting he resigns because The Mail want him to

    She told him to STFU about Partygate weeks ago.

    She also needs to appear loyal ahead of the forthcoming Leadership contest she hopes to win
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150

    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.

    We're there really only 22 net Labour gains in England?!

    That's rubbish. I refer back to my previous post about no Labour gains.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It very much does make a difference. How do we feel if we substitute a beer and a curry for a Tesco's sandwich meal deal at 10pm. The principle is the same, the question is did Starmer do anything that could constitute work during or immediately after the meal? Texts, phonecalls, emails. Starmer at least has a chance at some sort of redemption. Now an Abba karaoke work event at home, or a photo opportunity in a Hartlepool pub look more obvious breaches to me ? But I am not the Daily Mail so my opinion doesn't matter.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,536
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    Wasn't Jeremy Clarkson pretty emphatic on this, not so long ago?

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697
    rcs1000 said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    So, you're saying the best performance was from a wishy washy centrist party whose leader has had a charisma bypass operation?
    Where are Ed Davey and Alex Cole-Hamilton? As Malkie put it this morning, the Invisible Man has a higher public profile.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    edited May 8

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I agree. People will hold their nose and vote Tory for fear of the Corbyn under the bed. I wouldn't even be surprised to see him promise to stand down 'in a year' to make way for a new broom to steady the horses then reverse ferret it later. He's an absolute toss pot
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,697
    MaxPB said:

    Final England results
    146 out of 146 councils

    Labour 2,265 (+22)
    Conservatives 1,075 (-338)
    Liberal Democrats 712 (+192)
    Independents 145 (+27)
    Greens 116 (+63)
    Residents Associations 51 (+10)
    Reform UK 2 (+2)
    UKIP 0 (-3)
    others 24 (+23)

    Dire Labour performance. Mid-term against an horrifically poor Tory government.

    We're there really only 22 net Labour gains in England?!

    That's rubbish. I refer back to my previous post about no Labour gains.
    Yes, according to the official BBC figures.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,713

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    Labour already started from a high base, you stupid Tory!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Both my daughters have suffered from lockdown, so I empathise and agree. It’s so easy for millionaires with big houses and gardens like Boris and Starmer to impose these laws on us all, knowing they won’t suffer much. If they then go and break these laws, which Boris created and which Starmer wanted to prolong and harden, then fuck them all to hell and back

    The elite needs to learn it can never do this again, not without serious consequences FOR THEM
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country. https://twitter.com/hugogye/status/1523349148870713344

    Those likeliest to bear the brunt of any backlash — the 2019 intake — were agonising over this particular question in their WhatsApp group last night https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523351253383741440/photo/1
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,885

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    Doesn't tritium have a half-life of circa 12 years? How likely is it that it's been replaced regularly since (or even before) the collapse of the Soviet Union 32 years ago?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    Definitely possible
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    But they aren't workers Rog, they're volunteers and they aren't on location, they're local to the area. Plus these weren't normal times, Starmer voted for the laws to make socialising like this impossible.

    I think it's trivial bullshit but it's his fucking party and decisions that meant the laws were in place. He should have thought about these things before blindly going along with the bullshit laws the government was coming up with.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    I’m surprised that people still considered SKS a serious politician after he tried to name a Covid variant after the Prime Minister. That was a weaker fighting move than his embarrassing boxing in the gym.

    Starmer must go, but his charge sheet of gaffes and embarrassing indiscretions is but a tiny fraction of Johnson's. Peppa Pig, and last week's speech to the Ukrainian Parliament were head and shoulders more embarrassing than Starmer boxing or driving a HGV.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Miami GP. This grid walk is absurd. Why not just let everyone from the entire stand come onto the grid to take selfies?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    Labour already started from a high base, you stupid Tory!
    They started from a fairly low base, a decidedly average mid term 2018 performance. Just not as low as the basement they'll start from next year.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803
    Martin. Stop talking to people you don't know asking who they are. We don't care.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    rcs1000 said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    So, you're saying the best performance was from a wishy washy centrist party whose leader has had a charisma bypass operation?
    Yes with more radical proposals than the supposedly Democratic Socialist Party that is neither.

    Davey is positively box office compared to the cardboard box man SKS
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    This is where Italy holds an advantage over the rest of the Med. The food in small towns is far and away the best of the beach countries. It's a shame they've gone down the COVID rules forever route, hopefully by September when the baby is old enough for us to travel they'll have seen the light, would love for Italy to be the baby's first overseas holiday!
    Isn’t your baby due super soon? Or has it arrived?

    You described yourself calmly making home made naan bread just now, so I doubt you have a 3 day old bambino in the house…
    Yeah just 4 weeks left but really could come at any point. Given our history of miscarriages we've been extra careful about not buying anything for the baby or doing the nursery in case we jinx it so we've got a lot of last minute work to do.

    Also in other news my wife has finally come around to not going to Switzerland for at least 3-4 years until the kid needs to start school. We've also decided that our household will be dual language, English and Italian which we both speak and if we move to Switzerland I think we'd go to Lugano or Ticino and we'd just work remotely.
    Good luck

    Just think of it being “a bit like Brexit” and you’ll be fine

    ;)

    Good choice on Ticino. Switzerland has many great virtues but it is a tiny bit dull. The Italian speaking slice is by far the most vivacious, and it has the best weather and food. If you’re on good Swiss wages it is a wonderful place to live, I imagine. If you get bored you can cross the lake to Italy and have all the fun you need, and it will be as cheap as chips

    I sometimes ask myself where I would live if I had a billion quid. Ticino would be in the top 10
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150


    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,936
    Leon said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Both my daughters have suffered from lockdown, so I empathise and agree. It’s so easy for millionaires with big houses and gardens like Boris and Starmer to impose these laws on us all, knowing they won’t suffer much. If they then go and break these laws, which Boris created and which Starmer wanted to prolong and harden, then fuck them all to hell and back

    The elite needs to learn it can never do this again, not without serious consequences FOR THEM
    Agree, agree, agree, with all of the above

    I'm a grown man and I spent a year out of work, and more or less a month alternating between smashing furniture in my house and crying curled up in a ball due to lockdown restrictions.

    I cannot imagine the effect on a 4 year old, it's a critical age where you are exposed to so many things for the first time. To be locked up within a tiny flat (most people do not have big houses with big gardens) for all that time would be nightmarish at any age.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,426

    Taz said:

    nico679 said:

    MrEd said:

    nico679 said:

    If Starmer goes then Johnson is in deep trouble if he receives another FPN .

    You can imagine the questions. The leader of the opposition resigned over one FPN , you’ve had two . Why aren’t you resigning?

    SKS' particular problems with this - if he gets a FPN - are (1) the words he used calling for BJ to resign and the fact he looks like a hypocrite (2) he has presented himself as a picture of moral probity and (3) he is a senior lawyer and the general principle (correct me if I am wrong @Cyclefree and @DavidL ) is that, when it comes to the law, lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

    None of the above three apply to BJ.
    So because the public think Johnson is a liar and a clown means he only has to clear a low bar! And shouldn’t the PM be the model of moral probity given he represents the country .

    I do admire your spin but Starmer is being investigated for one event , no doubt if there were more the DM would have dug them up already . Johnson and no 10 is being investigated for 12 events .
    Its bizarre. The rules which Tories claim requires the resignation of Starmer apparently reinforce the righteousness of Johnson not resigning.
    Of course Johnson should fall on his sword but Starmer said Johnson should stand down just for being investigated. Therefore Starmer should, by that logic, also stand down.
    That Johnson should stand down *as Prime Minister*. Starmer can't do that.
    He never said PM, he said stand down. Anyway, irrespective. There is no reason that same logic should not apply to SKS as LOTO.

    A point I have no doubt the Tories will make. SKS made an error there. Poor judgement.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    edited May 8

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It very much does make a difference. How do we feel if we substitute a beer and a curry for a Tesco's sandwich meal deal at 10pm. The principle is the same, the question is did Starmer do anything that could constitute work during or immediately after the meal? Texts, phonecalls, emails. Starmer at least has a chance at some sort of redemption. Now an Abba karaoke work event at home, or a photo opportunity in a Hartlepool pub look more obvious breaches to me ? But I am not the Daily Mail so my opinion doesn't matter.
    Your opinion matters to me Pete

    Don't go backing out of our Starmer must go alliance
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    MaxPB said:



    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.

    2 point lead against basically Duck House flipping in a recession meets Profumo, Jonathan Aitken and Archer is lamentable
    How crap are labour?!
    Lutfur Rahman owned them and dhowed everyone how to do it. Just offer anything at all program of government wise and their support disintegrares
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,544
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Both my daughters have suffered from lockdown, so I empathise and agree. It’s so easy for millionaires with big houses and gardens like Boris and Starmer to impose these laws on us all, knowing they won’t suffer much. If they then go and break these laws, which Boris created and which Starmer wanted to prolong and harden, then fuck them all to hell and back

    The elite needs to learn it can never do this again, not without serious consequences FOR THEM
    Agree, agree, agree, with all of the above

    I'm a grown man and I spent a year out of work, and more or less a month alternating between smashing furniture in my house and crying curled up in a ball due to lockdown restrictions.

    I cannot imagine the effect on a 4 year old, it's a critical age where you are exposed to so many things for the first time. To be locked up within a tiny flat (most people do not have big houses with big gardens) for all that time would be nightmarish at any age.
    Sorry to hear that @kyf_100 and I hope all is ok now. And I would agree with all you said.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Both my daughters have suffered from lockdown, so I empathise and agree. It’s so easy for millionaires with big houses and gardens like Boris and Starmer to impose these laws on us all, knowing they won’t suffer much. If they then go and break these laws, which Boris created and which Starmer wanted to prolong and harden, then fuck them all to hell and back

    The elite needs to learn it can never do this again, not without serious consequences FOR THEM
    Agree, agree, agree, with all of the above

    I'm a grown man and I spent a year out of work, and more or less a month alternating between smashing furniture in my house and crying curled up in a ball due to lockdown restrictions.

    I cannot imagine the effect on a 4 year old, it's a critical age where you are exposed to so many things for the first time. To be locked up within a tiny flat (most people do not have big houses with big gardens) for all that time would be nightmarish at any age.
    I have several friends with infant kids reporting a sudden, unexpected lag in communication skills. It is obviously happening. What did we expect locking everyone up for months on end? And hiding faces, smiles, mouths, in masks, so kids can’t read emotions?

    It is a brewing disaster in mental health

    My older daughter recently needed an assessment for some of this, we went private because the NHS waiting list is now insanely long, as so many kids/teens are in difficulty

    Anyone that had a hand in making these laws - Boris - or demanding the laws be even stricter - Starmer - needs to pay a high price for breaking the same laws. A really high price. So they learn

  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 260
    Have I missed something, but have the election results from Tower Hamlets been discussed. Hardly mentioned in the papers
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,426

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 4,187
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Both my daughters have suffered from lockdown, so I empathise and agree. It’s so easy for millionaires with big houses and gardens like Boris and Starmer to impose these laws on us all, knowing they won’t suffer much. If they then go and break these laws, which Boris created and which Starmer wanted to prolong and harden, then fuck them all to hell and back

    The elite needs to learn it can never do this again, not without serious consequences FOR THEM
    Agree, agree, agree, with all of the above

    I'm a grown man and I spent a year out of work, and more or less a month alternating between smashing furniture in my house and crying curled up in a ball due to lockdown restrictions.

    I cannot imagine the effect on a 4 year old, it's a critical age where you are exposed to so many things for the first time. To be locked up within a tiny flat (most people do not have big houses with big gardens) for all that time would be nightmarish at any age.
    It was a pathetic method of pandemic handling. It must never be allowed to happen again. It destroyed lives, the economy and mental health and probably saved nobody given it obviously wasn't 'absolute' so the virus just circulates and then spreads in the usual primary vector - the home.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    edited May 8

    MaxPB said:



    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.

    2 point lead against basically Duck House flipping in a recession meets Profumo, Jonathan Aitken and Archer is lamentable
    How crap are labour?!
    Lutfur Rahman owned them and dhowed everyone how to do it. Just offer anything at all program of government wise and their support disintegrares
    Plus those Lab Gain numbers are outdated and overstated

    Its 22 England, 20 Scotland and 67 Wales ie 109 in total.
This discussion has been closed.