Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
That is pretty remarkable, talking about the morale and professionalism of the Ukraine forces - shitting on the interjector's attempt to suggest being conscripted prevents professionalism, and their attempt to imply being willing to die for Ukraine in its defence is a negative - the potential impact of new weapons and aid, and that sabre rattling over NATO just looks amusing.
'The main thing in our (military) business, it's always to maintain a sense of military-political realism. If you go beyond it, thensooner or later the reality of history will hit you so hard that you'll regret it.'
I'm struck by the quality of that man's contribution, with his ability to talk at length in a logical and seemingly balanced way about a subject, to take interruptions, weigh them and address them whilst maintaining the thrust of his argument, which gives not only a view but a sense of calm authority. How many talking heads would you see on British TV that seem as capable as that?
Certainly odd to see him in that forum.
Perhaps they’d booked Nigel Farage but he couldn’t get a visa.
LOL. BBC reporting that Putin is now getting involved in individual tactical decisions at the battlefield level.
That should cheer the Ukrainians no end.
Those Downfall parodies are starting to look like a documentary.....
Interesting to contemplate the original source (it's been passed on by Western military sources). If it's a Russian leak, it must be designed to shift the blame from the military onto Putin, making a coup more likely. If it's Ukrainian disinformation, then shrug. If it's genuine Western intel of what's actually happenng, it shows striking confidence in the security of the intel to leak it. But in general one of the less-discussed features of the war is how remarkably good Western (electronic?) intelligence has been throughout - perhaps to the point that they no longer feel the need to conceal it.
It's an excellent point.
Going into the Ukraine conflict, the impression I had was that the Russian were experts in cyberwarfare and espionage, and that we were a bit shit.
It turns out that we weren't shit. We just preferred not to make it too obvious what we were doing.
That looks right. But I don't quite get why we've now decided to go public. In order to make Zelensky like us even more? I'd have thought he'd be fine with us keeping quiet and continuing to pass the data along. There has to be a small risk that the Russians will work out where the leaks are coming from if we keep offering hints. Coleen Rooney wasn't the first to think of the sting technique to spot a leaker.
I learned the other evening that a similar technique was used by an American code breaker to proved that ‘AF’ was Midway and the Japanese were planning to attack it. So Coleen is in good company!
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
He was intellectually and morally streets ahead of the current cunt-bag.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
That is pretty remarkable, talking about the morale and professionalism of the Ukraine forces - shitting on the interjector's attempt to suggest being conscripted prevents professionalism, and their attempt to imply being willing to die for Ukraine in its defence is a negative - the potential impact of new weapons and aid, and that sabre rattling over NATO just looks amusing.
'The main thing in our (military) business, it's always to maintain a sense of military-political realism. If you go beyond it, thensooner or later the reality of history will hit you so hard that you'll regret it.'
I'm struck by the quality of that man's contribution, with his ability to talk at length in a logical and seemingly balanced way about a subject, to take interruptions, weigh them and address them whilst maintaining the thrust of his argument, which gives not only a view but a sense of calm authority. How many talking heads would you see on British TV that seem as capable as that?
Certainly odd to see him in that forum.
Perhaps they’d booked Nigel Farage but he couldn’t get a visa.
Let him go and cancel his passport whilst he's out the country. I'd pay a fucking fortune to watch him paddle back over in a dinghy.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
Whoever it was left for, it was undoubtedly Cameron and Osborn who made the most mileage out of it. Which is fine and all, that's just politics, but we need to make sure that we separate that out from the economic reality if we're talking about what was actually happening, if we're really talking about the economy. (Spoiler: people usually aren't even when they say they are)
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
There’s a few posts in this short thread that certainly show no soft spot for Boris or his government 🙂
But we’ve even got Garden Walker to admit Boris is charismatic and eloquent.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
There’s a few posts in this short thread that certainly show no soft spot for Boris or his government 🙂
But we’ve even got Garden Walker to admit Boris is charismatic and eloquent.
I said charismatic. He is definitely not eloquent; he waffles and his speeches usually lack any material substance.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
That is pretty remarkable, talking about the morale and professionalism of the Ukraine forces - shitting on the interjector's attempt to suggest being conscripted prevents professionalism, and their attempt to imply being willing to die for Ukraine in its defence is a negative - the potential impact of new weapons and aid, and that sabre rattling over NATO just looks amusing.
'The main thing in our (military) business, it's always to maintain a sense of military-political realism. If you go beyond it, thensooner or later the reality of history will hit you so hard that you'll regret it.'
I'm struck by the quality of that man's contribution, with his ability to talk at length in a logical and seemingly balanced way about a subject, to take interruptions, weigh them and address them whilst maintaining the thrust of his argument, which gives not only a view but a sense of calm authority. How many talking heads would you see on British TV that seem as capable as that?
Certainly odd to see him in that forum.
Perhaps they’d booked Nigel Farage but he couldn’t get a visa.
Let him go and cancel his passport whilst he's out the country. I'd pay a fucking fortune to watch him paddle back over in a dinghy.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It’s actually a very good example of what JRM is failing to understand. Liam Byrne was horrible to the civil service and no one who could have removed the note to save his face bothered to do so. JRM will get his equivalent. The civil service won’t bring him down, they just won’t bust a gut to save him.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
That is pretty remarkable, talking about the morale and professionalism of the Ukraine forces - shitting on the interjector's attempt to suggest being conscripted prevents professionalism, and their attempt to imply being willing to die for Ukraine in its defence is a negative - the potential impact of new weapons and aid, and that sabre rattling over NATO just looks amusing.
'The main thing in our (military) business, it's always to maintain a sense of military-political realism. If you go beyond it, thensooner or later the reality of history will hit you so hard that you'll regret it.'
I'm struck by the quality of that man's contribution, with his ability to talk at length in a logical and seemingly balanced way about a subject, to take interruptions, weigh them and address them whilst maintaining the thrust of his argument, which gives not only a view but a sense of calm authority. How many talking heads would you see on British TV that seem as capable as that?
Certainly odd to see him in that forum.
Perhaps they’d booked Nigel Farage but he couldn’t get a visa.
Let him go and cancel his passport whilst he's out the country. I'd pay a fucking fortune to watch him paddle back over in a dinghy.
… with the RNLI pushing him back…
Can you imagine being out on a call and suddenly seeing his gurning mug emerging from the channel mist, like some horrifying aquatic Gollum? I'd probably harpoon him before my conscious mind even caught up and recognised him. Let's not put our brave sailors through that experience.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
Whoever it was left for, it was undoubtedly Cameron and Osborn who made the most mileage out of it. Which is fine and all, that's just politics, but we need to make sure that we separate that out from the economic reality if we're talking about what was actually happening, if we're really talking about the economy. (Spoiler: people usually aren't even when they say they are)
Okay, economic situation in 2010 (though it was libdems who leaked it and dined out on that note)
In late 00’s There was a huge crunch and a recession, unfortunate for Brown who’s reputation was built on “no boom no bust” economics. Even the most trivial investigation revealed, as he promised no boom or bust he was Presiding over the biggest bubble in financial history, not only not spotting it, not mitigating it, but photographed with his arm round the bankers responsible as he welcomed their sub prime banking to the UK.
260 seats was way more than they deserved after that.
And as they havn’t been in government since to put the record straight with a better performance, it’s still a millstone on Labour front bench, that is what happens when you have a Labour government.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
Whoever it was left for, it was undoubtedly Cameron and Osborn who made the most mileage out of it. Which is fine and all, that's just politics, but we need to make sure that we separate that out from the economic reality if we're talking about what was actually happening, if we're really talking about the economy. (Spoiler: people usually aren't even when they say they are)
Okay, economic situation in 2010 (though it was libdems who leaked it and dined out on that note)
In late 00’s There was a huge crunch and a recession, unfortunate for Brown who’s reputation was built on “no boom no bust” economics. Even the most trivial investigation revealed, as he promised no boom or bust he was Presiding over the biggest bubble in financial history, not only not spotting it, not mitigating it, but photographed with his arm round the bankers responsible as he welcomed their sub prime banking to the UK.
260 seats was way more than they deserved after that.
And as they havn’t been in government since to put the record straight with a better performance, it’s still a millstone on Labour front bench, that is what happens when you have a Labour government.
Case in point: pretending to talk about economics; not really talking about economics.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
An early sign of his inability to resist the temptations of fiscal meddling. A very flawed man, but a giant nonetheless.
Fifteen years ago PB was wall-to-wall ridiculing of Gordon Brown. I fully expect someone to post in fifteen years time that “Boris Johnson was a very flawed man, but a giant nonetheless.”
They’ll be as wrong then as you are now. Not about his flaws but about his ginormity.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
Whoever it was left for, it was undoubtedly Cameron and Osborn who made the most mileage out of it. Which is fine and all, that's just politics, but we need to make sure that we separate that out from the economic reality if we're talking about what was actually happening, if we're really talking about the economy. (Spoiler: people usually aren't even when they say they are)
Okay, economic situation in 2010 (though it was libdems who leaked it and dined out on that note)
In late 00’s There was a huge crunch and a recession, unfortunate for Brown who’s reputation was built on “no boom no bust” economics. Even the most trivial investigation revealed, as he promised no boom or bust he was Presiding over the biggest bubble in financial history, not only not spotting it, not mitigating it, but photographed with his arm round the bankers responsible as he welcomed their sub prime banking to the UK.
260 seats was way more than they deserved after that.
And as they havn’t been in government since to put the record straight with a better performance, it’s still a millstone on Labour front bench, that is what happens when you have a Labour government.
Case in point: pretending to talk about economics; not really talking about economics.
Even Margot Robbie naked in a bubble Bath understands it better than you 💋
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
He’s a comic turn with a fetching whiff of scalliwag but a deep core of narcissistic lust for power.
See also (to greater or lesser extent) Donald Trump, and the late mayor of Toronto Rob Ford.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
What’s Eddie the eagle Edward?
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
What’s Eddie the eagle Edward?
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
Boris is similar, has won at least one landslide by being a bigger personality than all the politicians around him.
I think I'm being a little too generous to him, to be honest. I think he's a criminally negligent popinjay, a narcissistic psychopath who would kill to further his own interests, a user, a wretched, unrescuable sinner, a creature of base, unslakeable lust, a flabby, ill-prepared chancer, a dead-eyed weirdo with a penchant for inserting himself into the lives of people who don't deserve to suffer him but who are too damaged or gullible to say no. He is Caliban, Shylock and Malvolio, stacked inside a fat suit, bumbling around the corridors of power and unable to believe they've lasted this long on what is obviously a demented, drunken student prank.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
What’s Eddie the eagle Edward?
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
Boris is similar, has won at least one landslide by being a bigger personality than all the politicians around him.
I think I'm being a little too generous to him, to be honest. I think he's a criminally negligent popinjay, a narcissistic psychopath who would kill to further his own interests, a user, a wretched, unrescuable sinner, a creature of base, unslakeable lust, a flabby, ill-prepared chancer, a dead-eyed weirdo with a penchant for inserting himself into the lives of people who don't deserve to suffer him but who are too damaged or gullible to say no. He is Caliban, Shylock and Malvolio, stacked inside a fat suit, bumbling around the corridors of power and unable to believe they've lasted this long on what is obviously a demented, drunken student prank.
70%!!! Christ you’d want to spend/invest all cash the instant it entered your account. Lots of gold under their mattresses, presumably?
When bitcoin and currencies collapse, gold under mattresses will be very useful. Never dismiss wisdom tried and tested over thousands of years.
When Yugoslavia collapsed, gold was useless.
The exchange rate of bread to gold was off the charts.
What you needed, apparently, was a large quantity of average to cheap wine. Need food? Swap for wine. Need to see a dentist? Swap for wine.
In Basra the best tradable commodities were ammunition, Bic lighters and young women. In the period just after the invasion money of any sort was useless.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
It resonated, though.
Brown was certainly innocent of causing the global financial crisis (and may even have saved the world from further calamity), but he had his fingers all over the institutional architecture that made the UK more vulnerable, and he was seen as having over-geared public finances.
Indeed this was why the OBR was set up; to bring more transparency and independence to how public finances were projected and reported.
Yes, for sure, but political moments pass and resonance decays. It's funny what time can do. Since Boris became PM I'm faintly nostaligic for the good old days of having someone serious in Downing Street. Come back Gordy, all is forgiven.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
What’s Eddie the eagle Edward?
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
Boris is similar, has won at least one landslide by being a bigger personality than all the politicians around him.
I think I'm being a little too generous to him, to be honest. I think he's a criminally negligent popinjay, a narcissistic psychopath who would kill to further his own interests, a user, a wretched, unrescuable sinner, a creature of base, unslakeable lust, a flabby, ill-prepared chancer, a dead-eyed weirdo with a penchant for inserting himself into the lives of people who don't deserve to suffer him but who are too damaged or gullible to say no. He is Caliban, Shylock and Malvolio, stacked inside a fat suit, bumbling around the corridors of power and unable to believe they've lasted this long on what is obviously a demented, drunken student prank.
I think my own answer further down thread, mixed in with Garden walkers description of Oswald Moseley “He’s a comic turn with a fetching whiff of scalliwag but a deep core of narcissistic lust for power.” Pretty much nails it. Boris policy platform £350M a week more for NHS, Levelling Up, Oven Ready Brexit, high wage high skilled economy, council house sell off, no BBC license fee etc sells itself, it’s all goodie bag, who wouldn’t want that? Who wouldn’t vote for that?
Problem is, it’s not a policy platform, its reactionary politics. How exactly are they funding the BBC now committed to ending license fee? Levelling Up in particular, how many levelling up policies are on the way to being a success, how many mangled up when it comes to that detail which actually delivers something? Which levers are they pulling, policy in place, to deliver the high skill high wage economy?
The issue I am trying to explain here is Boris has won, he’s got a landslide, it’s works, proven the English voters like the front man and all his promises. So how do the opposition parties unwind this and peel the voters away, as things as normally do start swinging back now as we move on towards Election Day?
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
I’m trying to be realistic about the political situation, not pointlessly biased in every post. If we try to be balanced, separate the man you suspect is a bad un from the hugely charismatic eloquent and persuasive politician - he hasn’t lost anything yet has he? Wallpapergate, partygate, those who gave him a landslide don’t seem to care much about the media trying to get him on these things. If they voted for Brexit, for as long as they love Brexit they may vote Boris for PM again and again. He hasn’t lost his Primeministerial swagger, his Party hasn’t given up on him, it remains to be seen if he can be beaten on General Election night.
We can be as tribal and rude in posts as is possible, but it won’t change the reality in front of us. He still has charisma and skills of the self-serving cad, he still has heck of a lot of support considering a mid term wobble.
My goodness!
You are right that he survives while all those around him fall. You are not seeing what those of us on the other side of the fence appears blindingly obvious.
Johnson the Churchillian war leader can be spun until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it true. Back in the real world, Johnson is on the verge of doing something monumentally stupid to curry favour with the extreme wing of his party and the DUP.
Grown into the role? You're having a laugh.
Moon Rabbit has a weird soft spot for Boris that causes her posts on the subject to be grade-a bilge.
For all his flaws what would YOU concede he has though, to carry him this far?
A friendly press.
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
What’s Eddie the eagle Edward?
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
Boris is similar, has won at least one landslide by being a bigger personality than all the politicians around him.
I think I'm being a little too generous to him, to be honest. I think he's a criminally negligent popinjay, a narcissistic psychopath who would kill to further his own interests, a user, a wretched, unrescuable sinner, a creature of base, unslakeable lust, a flabby, ill-prepared chancer, a dead-eyed weirdo with a penchant for inserting himself into the lives of people who don't deserve to suffer him but who are too damaged or gullible to say no. He is Caliban, Shylock and Malvolio, stacked inside a fat suit, bumbling around the corridors of power and unable to believe they've lasted this long on what is obviously a demented, drunken student prank.
I think my own answer further down thread, mixed in with Garden walkers description of Oswald Moseley “He’s a comic turn with a fetching whiff of scalliwag but a deep core of narcissistic lust for power.” Pretty much nails it. Boris policy platform £350M a week more for NHS, Levelling Up, Oven Ready Brexit, high wage high skilled economy, council house sell off, no BBC license fee etc sells itself, it’s all goodie bag, who wouldn’t want that? Who wouldn’t vote for that?
Problem is, it’s not a policy platform, its reactionary politics. How exactly are they funding the BBC now committed to ending license fee? Levelling Up in particular, how many levelling up policies are on the way to being a success, how many mangled up when it comes to that detail which actually delivers something? Which levers are they pulling, policy in place, to deliver the high skill high wage economy?
The issue I am trying to explain here is Boris has won, he’s got a landslide, it’s works, proven the English voters like the front man and all his promises. So how do the opposition parties unwind this and peel the voters away, as things as normally do start swinging back now as we move on towards Election Day?
Pippa Crear on Sky saying tomorrows inflation rate could be up to 9%.
It's all going to shit. Would Labour be any better? Could they be worse?
Good post. If people already feeling pain and the pinch, would Labour, with their track record on the economy, be trusted rather than the devil you know? I’m sure that played in the 1992 election I read about, and appears to be the substance of the Tory campaign in 1980’s and 90’s. Might be better for labour if bad economic news blows away and they can stand on a build back better election instead?
The economy was not so bad (or at least felt not so bad to someone my age) in 2010 as in 1979. So I don't think people would be as reluctant to vote Labour now as back then in 1992.
2010? The outgoing Labour Treasury number 2 left a note on his desk saying, ha ha! There’s no money left.
Labour have not won a General election since.
That note is no substitute for real economic data. It was a joke that was utilised by the Conservatives for political reasons.
Left for a Libdem I understand, who quickly showed the world what Labour thinks is funny.
The note was an ill-advised joke that paralleled one left by outgoing Chancellor Reggie Maudling in the 1960s, as the coalition government affected not to realise in order to make political hay with it.
Farooq - Not there is any practical way to do this, but if we could, would you be willing to trade Boris Johnson for Donald Trump? (And maybe throw in Assange? Or, as American teams often do, throw in "a player to be named later"?)
Further to the Russian military expert going off reservation on tv, this thread on Igor Girkin, a right wing Russian nationalist, Donbass irredentist and likely suspect for the shooting down of Flight MH17, is interesting. While it’s clear that speaking out is a high risk activity in Russia, one has to assume that these guys have had some sort of green light from powerful people to even consider it. That Girkin wants the special operation to succeed is maybe his best protection and makes his criticism of the way it has been carried out all the more powerful.
LOL. BBC reporting that Putin is now getting involved in individual tactical decisions at the battlefield level.
That should cheer the Ukrainians no end.
Those Downfall parodies are starting to look like a documentary.....
Interesting to contemplate the original source (it's been passed on by Western military sources). If it's a Russian leak, it must be designed to shift the blame from the military onto Putin, making a coup more likely. If it's Ukrainian disinformation, then shrug. If it's genuine Western intel of what's actually happenng, it shows striking confidence in the security of the intel to leak it. But in general one of the less-discussed features of the war is how remarkably good Western (electronic?) intelligence has been throughout - perhaps to the point that they no longer feel the need to conceal it.
It's an excellent point.
Going into the Ukraine conflict, the impression I had was that the Russian were experts in cyberwarfare and espionage, and that we were a bit shit.
It turns out that we weren't shit. We just preferred not to make it too obvious what we were doing.
That looks right. But I don't quite get why we've now decided to go public. In order to make Zelensky like us even more? I'd have thought he'd be fine with us keeping quiet and continuing to pass the data along. There has to be a small risk that the Russians will work out where the leaks are coming from if we keep offering hints. Coleen Rooney wasn't the first to think of the sting technique to spot a leaker.
There are many options: *) To make the Russians expend energy looking for moles. *) To make the Russian leadership paranoid and distrust their underlings. *) To make the Russians look incompetent to any of their countrymen who can get western media. *) There is a chance the moles have already been moved from their positions. Hence no harm in saying we're still getting intel. *) To frame the 'wrong' people; i.e. to indicate the information is coming from people who are not the moles. *) There may be many sources, meaning one or two being burned does not matter much. *) The intel may have been from electronic rather than human sources. *) Russian military comms may be so leaky we cannot help but get the intel we need. *) To disrupt and slow down Russian chains of command. *) To make us look good with *our* public.
Mic & match as you like.
All in all, in this situation it's probably a good idea to show that we're getting intel - it's going to be a short- to medium-term game, not a long one, and the temporary disruptions it causes the Russians will be vital in helping the Ukrainians. Especially as the source(s) could be found and disrupted by the Russians at any time.
The Russians have just put the GRU (sort-of military intelligence) in charge of intel instead of the FSB. That's massively disruptive and divisive, and I do wonder if it is using a shovel to try to remove a cancerous cell. They cannot find the leak, so remove the entire organisation.
It's also interesting as Putin came up through the ranks of the FSB, and likes them alot.
I'm quite annoyed at the inaccessibility of RT online (for me) in recent weeks. It seems to be censorship unprecedented in my lifetime. I don't read the site for news, but I did take a quick squizz around it a couple of times a week to see what the Russian lines were.
Yes, and odd - it's not as though RT was making great strides in persuading the public, or even getting them to watch. What exactly are we afraid of? I like getting diverse input - I subscribe to a conservative Republican newsletter, for example, even though it makes me roll my eyes - so I think it's a pity that we so easily give up on the principle that we're entitled to know what other people think.
I do love LuckyGuy's impassioned plea that he likes to see what the Russian lines are.
Considering he parroted those lines over the MH17 shootdown, and apparently still does not believe the Dutch investigation, perhaps not watching RT is a good thing?
LOL. BBC reporting that Putin is now getting involved in individual tactical decisions at the battlefield level.
That should cheer the Ukrainians no end.
Those Downfall parodies are starting to look like a documentary.....
Interesting to contemplate the original source (it's been passed on by Western military sources). If it's a Russian leak, it must be designed to shift the blame from the military onto Putin, making a coup more likely. If it's Ukrainian disinformation, then shrug. If it's genuine Western intel of what's actually happenng, it shows striking confidence in the security of the intel to leak it. But in general one of the less-discussed features of the war is how remarkably good Western (electronic?) intelligence has been throughout - perhaps to the point that they no longer feel the need to conceal it.
It's an excellent point.
Going into the Ukraine conflict, the impression I had was that the Russian were experts in cyberwarfare and espionage, and that we were a bit shit.
It turns out that we weren't shit. We just preferred not to make it too obvious what we were doing.
I've got a little theory about that, and it is that the Russian (and Chinese, and NK, etc) hackers used their techniques too early.
When the war started and the west started helping Ukraine, I expected a massive influx of successful cyberattacks. The Russians were good at this sh*t. But although they have tried, our defences against the attacks have been good. And that might be because 'we've' seen the attacks before, and know how to guard against them. The organisations being hacked might be ones that did not pay close enough attention beforehand...
Farooq - Not there is any practical way to do this, but if we could, would you be willing to trade Boris Johnson for Donald Trump? (And maybe throw in Assange? Or, as American teams often do, throw in "a player to be named later"?)
I'd trade Boris Johnson for a half eaten sandwich.
Boris is solid now. He towers above his cabinet and parliamentary party. Getting rid Big Dog this side of the General Election is over now. Up to opposition parties and voters now, to get it right in the long run up to voting day.
In a way it was chance to be a war leader that brought best out of Boris, he’s toned down bombast and arrogance over the last few months and now just looks so relaxed. Grown into the role, perhaps.
Can I please borrow your rose tinted Liberal Democrat spectacles.
War Leader? Titter.
Somone having a laugh or else pie eyed surely. Does Hyfud have an alter ego.
Politicians are strange creatures, aren't they? Many are known for one or two things, rarely good.
Take Edwina Currie. What is she known for? Something to do with eggs and an affair with John Major.
I'm currently struggling through Stephen Fry's turgid third volume of memoirs. Fry is very much a lefty, and contributed to speeches for Kinnock, Smith and Blair. Yet he refers to Currie as 'sainted' ?
The reason: in 1994 she introduced a Private Members Bill to equalise the homosexual age of consent to the heterosexual one; it was defeated, but the age was reduced to 18 (finally being reduced to 16 around 2000).
Farooq - Not there is any practical way to do this, but if we could, would you be willing to trade Boris Johnson for Donald Trump? (And maybe throw in Assange? Or, as American teams often do, throw in "a player to be named later"?)
I'd trade Boris Johnson for a half eaten sandwich.
One of the advantages of being a mendaciously shape shifting twat is that you can comfortably mendaciously shape shift I guess.
Unless you start saying the quiet parts out loud...
Johnson says he signed the NI protocol because he 'hoped & believed our (European) friends would not necessarily want to apply it.' So he told a lie to the British public. Again. And he tells allies 🇬🇧 word cannot be trusted. https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1526293653467054080
What a stupid, pointless and utterly self-defeating war this is. It will take Russia decades - perhaps generations - to recover.
Indeed Mr J; and in all sorts of ways.
And Good Morning one and all.
Good morning to you too. I am pleased to announce that yesterday lunchtime we had two baby blue tits; this morning the number is four. They are fascinatingly ugly things.
What a stupid, pointless and utterly self-defeating war this is. It will take Russia decades - perhaps generations - to recover.
Indeed Mr J; and in all sorts of ways.
And Good Morning one and all.
Good morning to you too. I am pleased to announce that yesterday lunchtime we had two baby blue tits; this morning the number is four. They are fascinatingly ugly things.
We have six, so far as we can see, although they crawl over each other to a considerable extent, so it's difficult to be certain. There were eight eggs, so what has happened to the other two we're not sure. In any event, from watching these things over several years, late hatchlings, being that bit smaller and weaker, don't tend to survive. We think!
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
What a stupid, pointless and utterly self-defeating war this is. It will take Russia decades - perhaps generations - to recover.
Alex Salmond is on their side, so a generation is about 18 months.
Less flippantly, that Channel One interview where a Russian pundit basically said 'we're screwed now and it's about to get a whole lot worse' was interesting. Does anyone know if the Twitter replies are true that he's well-connected in the Russian Defense Ministry? If so, it's even more interesting.
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
What do I know? It turns out that Alloro didn't survive Covid.
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
Whichever department is concerned with power generation wouldn't invest in tidal if the alternative was to incinerate the bodies of the firstborn for power.
They have such an absolute down on tidal on entirely spurious grounds we can only conclude there's corruption happening somewhere.
LOL. BBC reporting that Putin is now getting involved in individual tactical decisions at the battlefield level.
That should cheer the Ukrainians no end.
Those Downfall parodies are starting to look like a documentary.....
Interesting to contemplate the original source (it's been passed on by Western military sources). If it's a Russian leak, it must be designed to shift the blame from the military onto Putin, making a coup more likely. If it's Ukrainian disinformation, then shrug. If it's genuine Western intel of what's actually happenng, it shows striking confidence in the security of the intel to leak it. But in general one of the less-discussed features of the war is how remarkably good Western (electronic?) intelligence has been throughout - perhaps to the point that they no longer feel the need to conceal it.
They’ve actually been very open about intelligence - to counter Russian disinformation - throughout the war.
A nugget like this is about stoking internal Russian tensions though
What a stupid, pointless and utterly self-defeating war this is. It will take Russia decades - perhaps generations - to recover.
Alex Salmond is on their side, so a generation is about 18 months.
Less flippantly, that Channel One interview where a Russian pundit basically said 'we're screwed now and it's about to get a whole lot worse' was interesting. Does anyone know if the Twitter replies are true that he's well-connected in the Russian Defense Ministry? If so, it's even more interesting.
He's this chap (article is from 11th Feb)
"Another example of internal dissent—less dramatic, but in some ways more intriguing and possibly more significant—is an article by retired Col. Mikhail Khodarenok. As the former head of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff and the editor of an influential military journal, Khodarenok has strong ties with active-duty senior officers.
In last week’s issue of the widely read Independent Military Review, Khodarenok derides the notion, held by many senior political officials in Moscow, that Russia could conquer Ukraine in short order. This view, he writes, reflects “complete ignorance of the military-political situation and the mood of the broad masses” in Ukraine. It ignores the fact—of which he says there should be “no doubt”—that Western nations would send Ukraine massive quantities of arms similar to the U.S. Lend-Lease Act that helped the Allied armies in World War II. He reminds readers that Josef Stalin’s spies and soldiers “fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years”—and that the resistance fighters in today’s Ukraine would be fiercer still. “Finally,” Khodarenok concludes, “the most important thing: An armed conflict with Ukraine is currently fundamentally not in Russia’s national interest.”
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Yep. A lot of vacancies in sectors like hospitality and a lot of unemployment in places where the vacancies aren't. "Go get a job, or work more hours, or get a better job. Don't whine at us you peasants" from the minister yesterday is a stupid election-losing attitude.
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Employment / unemployment is a very lagging indicator. Thanks to high oil prices, major energy importers will tip into recession in the next few months. (If what you spend on electricity, gas, and petrol has gone through the roof, you can afford a lot fewer Starbucks.)
Of course, if Russia is defeated and Putin goes, that can change on a dime.
The scale of Russian crimes in Ukraine is gradually getting clearer. Bucha is not a one-off and murder, rape and torture have been used routinely by the occupying forces. It is sickening and totally evil. Normal relations with Russia can never be possible for as long as the criminals go unpunished. Meanwhile the gradual collapse of the Russian armed forces seems to being accelerated by the arrival of NATO kit and freshly trained Ukrainian troops onto the battlefields.
One can only hope that Russia is finished as a great power after a comprehensive defeat.
Then there might be a reckoning in the West with those who either took the cash to shill for Putin, or were sufficiently demented to do it for free: Tucker Carlson? Rand Paul? As for those like Farage and Salmond who were happy to work for RT, to my mind there is insufficient condemnation of them both then and now. The truth is that a Russian defeat should also be followed by a righteous purge of those in the West who were so morally blind that they were prepared to support the blank faced butcher of the Kremlin or those who took his money. Schoeder, Le Pen et al in the EU, and several figures in the UK.
A monstrous evil has been unleashed, and there really is no morally neutral ground. Those who stood to gain should pay the price.
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
Can anyone explain what Andrew Bailey is up to with the "don't take a pay rise" remarks?
It's obvious what the reaction would be and the BoE loses credibility. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - I get the thinking, but no chance I'm following that advice myself.
Maybe putting pressure on UKGov to freeze public sector pay?
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Yep. A lot of vacancies in sectors like hospitality and a lot of unemployment in places where the vacancies aren't. "Go get a job, or work more hours, or get a better job. Don't whine at us you peasants" from the minister yesterday is a stupid election-losing attitude.
Spent yesterday afternoon in Lyme Regis and as with Sidmouth it seemed like every cafe, restaurant and pub was advertising for staff. There just aren’t the people to fill the vacancies: the work is largely seasonal and there is almost no affordable accommodation. The previous supply of temporary workers willing to share rooms and kip on sofas no longer exists.
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Yep. A lot of vacancies in sectors like hospitality and a lot of unemployment in places where the vacancies aren't. "Go get a job, or work more hours, or get a better job. Don't whine at us you peasants" from the minister yesterday is a stupid election-losing attitude.
BBC also has: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said earnings, when adjusted for inflation, dropped by 1.2%.
That means that some people are almost 10% worse off! Unless it's only the high earners who've suffered, then there's going to be some real suffering. I don't think I recall reports of earnings dropping, although I heard tales of such from my parents.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
I’ve noticed that Russian commentators on their TV shows stand at podiums, while someone on Newsnight or Peston generally sits. Another sign of Western decadence?
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
That third point is the hot topic in the queue at the fish and chip shops of Maryport.
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
The nearest I get to Mayfair is the little dark-blue square on the Monopoly board.
But your first two points are good ones. I've said passim that the Covid crisis might end up saving more lives than it killed; the increase in spending on new drugs and therapeutics will be a boon over coming decades. There might be positives out of the Ukrainian war as well, as you note: but with both the war and covid, it's a shame we had to have a tragedy to get there.
I’ve noticed that Russian commentators on their TV shows stand at podiums, while someone on Newsnight or Peston generally sits. Another sign of Western decadence?
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
The nearest I get to Mayfair is the little dark-blue square on the Monopoly board.
But your first two points are good ones. I've said passim that the Covid crisis might end up saving more lives than it killed; the increase in spending on new drugs and therapeutics will be a boon over coming decades. There might be positives out of the Ukrainian war as well, as you note: but with both the war and covid, it's a shame we had to have a tragedy to get there.
Unfortunately, war and misfortune are big drivers of progress. The World Wars resulted in huge advances in womens' rights, medical gains, technological advances, and the second one completely discredited anti-semitism.
Two more positives are (a) revealing Russia to be a paper tiger (b) revealing so many political arguments in countries such as ours as being trivial by comparison.
They can't afford to get too shirty with Erdogan because he can turn off the Bayraktars.
There has always been this tension over the Kurds since the Gulf Wars. Kurds fighting Saddam & ISIS, good. Saddam & ISIS killing Kurds, bad. Nato member Turkey killing Kurds, move along now, nothing to see here.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
Slightly longer version of the video in this tweet.
The last minute or so is the anchor, Olga Skabeyeva, with her mad and rather chilling summary - "We were forced into this. We cannot surrender. We cannot talk to anyone. We must fight until the end. We will get there; our great country will win"
Politicians are strange creatures, aren't they? Many are known for one or two things, rarely good.
Take Edwina Currie. What is she known for? Something to do with eggs and an affair with John Major.
I'm currently struggling through Stephen Fry's turgid third volume of memoirs. Fry is very much a lefty, and contributed to speeches for Kinnock, Smith and Blair. Yet he refers to Currie as 'sainted' ?
The reason: in 1994 she introduced a Private Members Bill to equalise the homosexual age of consent to the heterosexual one; it was defeated, but the age was reduced to 18 (finally being reduced to 16 around 2000).
I had no idea.
I know this wasnt the point, but three volumes of memoirs? That seems excessive.
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Yep. A lot of vacancies in sectors like hospitality and a lot of unemployment in places where the vacancies aren't. "Go get a job, or work more hours, or get a better job. Don't whine at us you peasants" from the minister yesterday is a stupid election-losing attitude.
Spent yesterday afternoon in Lyme Regis and as with Sidmouth it seemed like every cafe, restaurant and pub was advertising for staff. There just aren’t the people to fill the vacancies: the work is largely seasonal and there is almost no affordable accommodation. The previous supply of temporary workers willing to share rooms and kip on sofas no longer exists.
No affordable accommodation. No affordable public transport (or no public transport). No affordable childcare. So we have huge pockets of unemployment and underemployment - people who want to work but can't because they have kids, or can't get there, or would't actually earn money by the time they pay for those things to allow them to work.
On the flip side we have unfillable vacancies. Hospitality. Industrial. Care. Jobs that people either don't want, or can't afford to take. The answer isn't "cut benefits" as some will screech - you already have people at food banks refusing some food offers as they have no means to cook having had power / gas cut off. Jobs need to pay more but when the job is a small cafe and the revenue doesn't cover labour plus taxes plus inflating utilities and material costs, they can't pay more.
No wonder that Bonzo the Clown wants to talk about sending people back to the office.
The last minute or so is the anchor, Olga Skabeyeva, with her mad and rather chilling summary - "We were forced into this. We cannot surrender. We cannot talk to anyone. We must fight until the end. We will get there; our great country will win"
70%!!! Christ you’d want to spend/invest all cash the instant it entered your account. Lots of gold under their mattresses, presumably?
When bitcoin and currencies collapse, gold under mattresses will be very useful. Never dismiss wisdom tried and tested over thousands of years.
When Yugoslavia collapsed, gold was useless.
The exchange rate of bread to gold was off the charts.
What you needed, apparently, was a large quantity of average to cheap wine. Need food? Swap for wine. Need to see a dentist? Swap for wine.
Shortly after the 1971 Bangladeshi war of independence, my father was in the country to provide emergency obstetric and gynaecological care. He rings my Mum up back in London. “What drugs should I send?” she asks. “Insulin,” he says. “What do you want insulin for? You’re not a diabetologist!?” “It’s the best drug to use in bartering.”
Mr. Jessop, I'm inclined to agree, but he's nuts enough that it can't be entirely removed as a possibility.
If Putin threatens to use nukes if we don't stop aiding Ukraine, and we give in to the threats, then he will know the threats work. And we can wave bye-bye to the Baltics, Poland and others. Worse, other malicious actors around the world will realise that nuclear weapons are a 'cheaper' alternative to modern conventional weapons systems.
The moment someone threatens first-use of nuclear weapons for a minor strategic aim, we have to call their bluff.
Can anyone explain what Andrew Bailey is up to with the "don't take a pay rise" remarks?
It's obvious what the reaction would be and the BoE loses credibility. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - I get the thinking, but no chance I'm following that advice myself.
Maybe putting pressure on UKGov to freeze public sector pay?
Who knows what Bailey is up to. This is the guy who hasn't even started quantitative tightening on the £800b QE assets even though inflation is raging out of control.
Anyway, I am off to the heart of the City of London for the first time in simply ages to give a talk on Bad People and How to Stop Them etc etc. in front of real life human beings.
It will be an odd experience after all this time doing stuff by Zoom.
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
To compare Putins war with the dispute over the NI protocol is ridiculous
Degree rather than kind, surely. Both show a contempt for civilised, or even sensible, norms.
Boris apparently accepts this morning he agreed the NI protocol with its problems and at least that is progress
It now needs HMG to continue talks with the EU to find a compromise and ignore the more extreme demands of the DUP
However, comparing this to Putin's war is as I said ridiculous
iirc the major problem at moment seems to be that the key EU negotiator, I forget his name, is only sanctioned to discuss minor technical changes rather a political kludge which is what is needed.
I don't think I've seen anything like this from Russian tv so far..
@francis_scarr In an extremely rare moment of candour on Russian state TV today, defence columnist Mikhail Khodaryonok gave a damning assessment of Russia's war in Ukraine and his country's international isolation. It's fairly long but worth your time so I've added subtitles. https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1526293852704890882
Slightly longer version of the video in this tweet.
The last minute or so is the anchor, Olga Skabeyeva, with her mad and rather chilling summary - "We were forced into this. We cannot surrender. We cannot talk to anyone. We must fight until the end. We will get there; our great country will win"
iirc the major problem at moment seems to be that the key EU negotiator, I forget his name, is only sanctioned to discuss minor technical changes rather a political kludge which is what is needed.
The major problem is Brexit.
BoZo wanted unicorns, and the EU have not delivered them
BBC just said that for he first time ever, there are more job vacancies than people unemployed. The BoE needs to raise rates now.
Yep. A lot of vacancies in sectors like hospitality and a lot of unemployment in places where the vacancies aren't. "Go get a job, or work more hours, or get a better job. Don't whine at us you peasants" from the minister yesterday is a stupid election-losing attitude.
Spent yesterday afternoon in Lyme Regis and as with Sidmouth it seemed like every cafe, restaurant and pub was advertising for staff. There just aren’t the people to fill the vacancies: the work is largely seasonal and there is almost no affordable accommodation. The previous supply of temporary workers willing to share rooms and kip on sofas no longer exists.
No affordable accommodation. No affordable public transport (or no public transport). No affordable childcare. So we have huge pockets of unemployment and underemployment - people who want to work but can't because they have kids, or can't get there, or would't actually earn money by the time they pay for those things to allow them to work.
On the flip side we have unfillable vacancies. Hospitality. Industrial. Care. Jobs that people either don't want, or can't afford to take. The answer isn't "cut benefits" as some will screech - you already have people at food banks refusing some food offers as they have no means to cook having had power / gas cut off. Jobs need to pay more but when the job is a small cafe and the revenue doesn't cover labour plus taxes plus inflating utilities and material costs, they can't pay more.
No wonder that Bonzo the Clown wants to talk about sending people back to the office.
It won't be a problem in 12 months time. The hospitality industry will be on its knees. Businesses will be closing at an alarming rate as discretionary spend falls off a cliff as we all have bills to pay. My wife was saying this morning we need to go out less. We earn a decent salary. Not as much as the "considerably richer than yow" willy wavers here, but well above the national and very well above the local average. We dine out 8-10 times a month. We will cut it to 4 and go local where it is cheaper.
Places like Lyme Regis and Sidmouth, like other parts of the Home Counties, need more homes for people as demand is outstripping supply. But, as we saw with the Chesham and Amersham by election, NIMBYISM trumps anything else. As long as the new homes are built elsewhere that is all that matters.
Politicians are strange creatures, aren't they? Many are known for one or two things, rarely good.
Take Edwina Currie. What is she known for? Something to do with eggs and an affair with John Major.
I'm currently struggling through Stephen Fry's turgid third volume of memoirs. Fry is very much a lefty, and contributed to speeches for Kinnock, Smith and Blair. Yet he refers to Currie as 'sainted' ?
The reason: in 1994 she introduced a Private Members Bill to equalise the homosexual age of consent to the heterosexual one; it was defeated, but the age was reduced to 18 (finally being reduced to 16 around 2000).
I had no idea.
I know this wasnt the point, but three volumes of memoirs? That seems excessive.
Let's draw some positives out of the Ukraine war, shall we Mr Jessop.
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
The nearest I get to Mayfair is the little dark-blue square on the Monopoly board.
But your first two points are good ones. I've said passim that the Covid crisis might end up saving more lives than it killed; the increase in spending on new drugs and therapeutics will be a boon over coming decades. There might be positives out of the Ukrainian war as well, as you note: but with both the war and covid, it's a shame we had to have a tragedy to get there.
Unfortunately, war and misfortune are big drivers of progress. The World Wars resulted in huge advances in womens' rights, medical gains, technological advances, and the second one completely discredited anti-semitism.
Two more positives are (a) revealing Russia to be a paper tiger (b) revealing so many political arguments in countries such as ours as being trivial by comparison.
Are you sure you're not only saying that because you're transphobic?
Can anyone explain what Andrew Bailey is up to with the "don't take a pay rise" remarks?
It's obvious what the reaction would be and the BoE loses credibility. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - I get the thinking, but no chance I'm following that advice myself.
Maybe putting pressure on UKGov to freeze public sector pay?
Who knows what Bailey is up to. This is the guy who hasn't even started quantitative tightening on the £800b QE assets even though inflation is raging out of control.
Inflation is raging out of control for supply side reasons: the pandemic screwed manufacturing supply lines, especially from China; chip shortages mean new cars cannot be delivered; gas prices surged; the Russia-Ukraine kerfuffle has stymied food exports from both countries. The Bank of England cannot bring about world peace by raising interest rates!
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
To compare Putins war with the dispute over the NI protocol is ridiculous
Degree rather than kind, surely. Both show a contempt for civilised, or even sensible, norms.
Boris apparently accepts this morning he agreed the NI protocol with its problems and at least that is progress
It now needs HMG to continue talks with the EU to find a compromise and ignore the more extreme demands of the DUP
However, comparing this to Putin's war is as I said ridiculous
iirc the major problem at moment seems to be that the key EU negotiator, I forget his name, is only sanctioned to discuss minor technical changes rather a political kludge which is what is needed.
Maros Sefcovic - let's hope common sense prevails on both sides
Comments
Perhaps they’d booked Nigel Farage but he couldn’t get a visa.
I'd pay a fucking fortune to watch him paddle back over in a dinghy.
https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-news/2019/may/07/worst-deal-uk-history-20-years-brown-sold-britains-gold/
Which is fine and all, that's just politics, but we need to make sure that we separate that out from the economic reality if we're talking about what was actually happening, if we're really talking about the economy. (Spoiler: people usually aren't even when they say they are)
But I continue to give precisely zero fucks about the gold.
But we’ve even got Garden Walker to admit Boris is charismatic and eloquent.
He is definitely not eloquent; he waffles and his speeches usually lack any material substance.
Let's not put our brave sailors through that experience.
In late 00’s There was a huge crunch and a recession, unfortunate for Brown who’s reputation was built on “no boom no bust” economics. Even the most trivial investigation revealed, as he promised no boom or bust he was Presiding over the biggest bubble in financial history, not only not spotting it, not mitigating it, but photographed with his arm round the bankers responsible as he welcomed their sub prime banking to the UK.
260 seats was way more than they deserved after that.
And as they havn’t been in government since to put the record straight with a better performance, it’s still a millstone on Labour front bench, that is what happens when you have a Labour government.
They’ll be as wrong then as you are now. Not about his flaws but about his ginormity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHrSZ7BVFI
Ideologically and commercially, his interests are aligned with those who help forge public opinion. Attention is king, and the public don't really mind whether what they're seeing is genius or grotesque, as long as it's novel.
If you doubt this for any reason, go ask 100 people to name a famous ski jumper. And then go look up whether Eddie "the eagle" Edwards was famous for being the best, because that will be the most common answer you get by a light year.
Boris is interesting because he is a confluence of posh, enthusiastic, and intensely and profoundly mad. People are interested in a mad professor, even if he usually blows stuff up.
See also (to greater or lesser extent) Donald Trump, and the late mayor of Toronto Rob Ford.
I don’t agree with you Farooq. You are not being generous enough to Boris.
That doesn’t mean a soft spot. It means respect.
Margaret Thatcher was hated, but still respected for the skills which won her landslides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9vYjqQ5Ek
Boris is similar, has won at least one landslide by being a bigger personality than all the politicians around him.
The exchange rate of bread to gold was off the charts.
What you needed, apparently, was a large quantity of average to cheap wine. Need food? Swap for wine. Need to see a dentist? Swap for wine.
I think he's a criminally negligent popinjay, a narcissistic psychopath who would kill to further his own interests, a user, a wretched, unrescuable sinner, a creature of base, unslakeable lust, a flabby, ill-prepared chancer, a dead-eyed weirdo with a penchant for inserting himself into the lives of people who don't deserve to suffer him but who are too damaged or gullible to say no. He is Caliban, Shylock and Malvolio, stacked inside a fat suit, bumbling around the corridors of power and unable to believe they've lasted this long on what is obviously a demented, drunken student prank.
Problem is, it’s not a policy platform, its reactionary politics. How exactly are they funding the BBC now committed to ending license fee? Levelling Up in particular, how many levelling up policies are on the way to being a success, how many mangled up when it comes to that detail which actually delivers something? Which levers are they pulling, policy in place, to deliver the high skill high wage economy?
The issue I am trying to explain here is Boris has won, he’s got a landslide, it’s works, proven the English voters like the front man and all his promises. So how do the opposition parties unwind this and peel the voters away, as things as normally do start swinging back now as we move on towards Election Day?
https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1526238489972551680?s=21&t=m4tOoHtiZKXjaiyGkBbaVw
*) To make the Russians expend energy looking for moles.
*) To make the Russian leadership paranoid and distrust their underlings.
*) To make the Russians look incompetent to any of their countrymen who can get western media.
*) There is a chance the moles have already been moved from their positions. Hence no harm in saying we're still getting intel.
*) To frame the 'wrong' people; i.e. to indicate the information is coming from people who are not the moles.
*) There may be many sources, meaning one or two being burned does not matter much.
*) The intel may have been from electronic rather than human sources.
*) Russian military comms may be so leaky we cannot help but get the intel we need.
*) To disrupt and slow down Russian chains of command.
*) To make us look good with *our* public.
Mic & match as you like.
All in all, in this situation it's probably a good idea to show that we're getting intel - it's going to be a short- to medium-term game, not a long one, and the temporary disruptions it causes the Russians will be vital in helping the Ukrainians. Especially as the source(s) could be found and disrupted by the Russians at any time.
The Russians have just put the GRU (sort-of military intelligence) in charge of intel instead of the FSB. That's massively disruptive and divisive, and I do wonder if it is using a shovel to try to remove a cancerous cell. They cannot find the leak, so remove the entire organisation.
It's also interesting as Putin came up through the ranks of the FSB, and likes them alot.
Considering he parroted those lines over the MH17 shootdown, and apparently still does not believe the Dutch investigation, perhaps not watching RT is a good thing?
When the war started and the west started helping Ukraine, I expected a massive influx of successful cyberattacks. The Russians were good at this sh*t. But although they have tried, our defences against the attacks have been good. And that might be because 'we've' seen the attacks before, and know how to guard against them. The organisations being hacked might be ones that did not pay close enough attention beforehand...
Politicians are strange creatures, aren't they? Many are known for one or two things, rarely good.
Take Edwina Currie. What is she known for? Something to do with eggs and an affair with John Major.
I'm currently struggling through Stephen Fry's turgid third volume of memoirs. Fry is very much a lefty, and contributed to speeches for Kinnock, Smith and Blair. Yet he refers to Currie as 'sainted' ?
The reason: in 1994 she introduced a Private Members Bill to equalise the homosexual age of consent to the heterosexual one; it was defeated, but the age was reduced to 18 (finally being reduced to 16 around 2000).
I had no idea.
Wordle 332 3/6
🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I see Turkey doesn't want Finland/Sweden to join NATO.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61472021
Johnson says he signed the NI protocol because he 'hoped & believed our (European) friends would not necessarily want to apply it.' So he told a lie to the British public. Again. And he tells allies 🇬🇧 word cannot be trusted.
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1526293653467054080
And Good Morning one and all.
If Russia gets defeated militarily does the dictator stomp his feet and go for a battlefield nuclear strike?
If Ukraine can't drive Russia out of the south-east, does it cede that territory?
We think!
For a start, the people of Taiwan can feel a lot more secure. Premier Xi has seen that (a) defenders have a massive advantage, and (b) the Russian weapons he has bought or licensed perform poorly relative to Western ones (which Taiwan has purchased in abundance). The chances of China launching a cross Straits invasion have collapsed in the last three months.
Secondly, the world is going to invest ever more heavily in alternative methods of power generation. The more electricity you generate from solar, wind (and yes, tidal), the less dependent you are on Russia.
Thirdly, you will now be able to get a booking at expensive restaurants in Mayfair. Alloro used to shrug and sigh if you wanted a spot on Tuesday lunchtime. Now they will surely be very desirous of your presence.
Less flippantly, that Channel One interview where a Russian pundit basically said 'we're screwed now and it's about to get a whole lot worse' was interesting. Does anyone know if the Twitter replies are true that he's well-connected in the Russian Defense Ministry? If so, it's even more interesting.
They have such an absolute down on tidal on entirely spurious grounds we can only conclude there's corruption happening somewhere.
A nugget like this is about stoking internal Russian tensions though
"Another example of internal dissent—less dramatic, but in some ways more intriguing and possibly more significant—is an article by retired Col. Mikhail Khodarenok. As the former head of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff and the editor of an influential military journal, Khodarenok has strong ties with active-duty senior officers.
In last week’s issue of the widely read Independent Military Review, Khodarenok derides the notion, held by many senior political officials in Moscow, that Russia could conquer Ukraine in short order. This view, he writes, reflects “complete ignorance of the military-political situation and the mood of the broad masses” in Ukraine. It ignores the fact—of which he says there should be “no doubt”—that Western nations would send Ukraine massive quantities of arms similar to the U.S. Lend-Lease Act that helped the Allied armies in World War II. He reminds readers that Josef Stalin’s spies and soldiers “fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years”—and that the resistance fighters in today’s Ukraine would be fiercer still. “Finally,” Khodarenok concludes, “the most important thing: An armed conflict with Ukraine is currently fundamentally not in Russia’s national interest.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/ukraine-crisis-putin-military-opposition.html
Of course, if Russia is defeated and Putin goes, that can change on a dime.
But right now, economies are slowing fast.
One can only hope that Russia is finished as a great power after a comprehensive defeat.
Then there might be a reckoning in the West with those who either took the cash to shill for Putin, or were sufficiently demented to do it for free: Tucker Carlson? Rand Paul? As for those like Farage and Salmond who were happy to work for RT, to my mind there is insufficient condemnation of them both then and now. The truth is that a Russian defeat should also be followed by a righteous purge of those in the West who were so morally blind that they were prepared to support the blank faced butcher of the Kremlin or those who took his money. Schoeder, Le Pen et al in the EU, and several figures in the UK.
A monstrous evil has been unleashed, and there really is no morally neutral ground. Those who stood to gain should pay the price.
Vlad's assault on Ukraine, or BoZo's assault on international treaties and the Rule of Law?
Brandon Lewis confirms to @KayBurley that the government will not introduce legislation to override the protocol *today*, as had been suggested.
“Something like that was never on the cards this week, we are still debating the Queen’s Speech”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1526450063156953088
Johnson announcing he signed a major trade agreement with the assumption the other side would not enforce it is a bold take on how international diplomacy works.
#Brexit
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1526445070718799872
It's obvious what the reaction would be and the BoE loses credibility. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma - I get the thinking, but no chance I'm following that advice myself.
Maybe putting pressure on UKGov to freeze public sector pay?
The BBC also said that private sector pay is higher than inflation at 8.2% but public sector pay is less at 1.2%
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said earnings, when adjusted for inflation, dropped by 1.2%.
That means that some people are almost 10% worse off!
Unless it's only the high earners who've suffered, then there's going to be some real suffering. I don't think I recall reports of earnings dropping, although I heard tales of such from my parents.
But your first two points are good ones. I've said passim that the Covid crisis might end up saving more lives than it killed; the increase in spending on new drugs and therapeutics will be a boon over coming decades. There might be positives out of the Ukrainian war as well, as you note: but with both the war and covid, it's a shame we had to have a tragedy to get there.
Two more positives are (a) revealing Russia to be a paper tiger (b) revealing so many political arguments in countries such as ours as being trivial by comparison.
The last minute or so is the anchor, Olga Skabeyeva, with her mad and rather chilling summary - "We were forced into this. We cannot surrender. We cannot talk to anyone. We must fight until the end. We will get there; our great country will win"
https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1526329765065539592
It now needs HMG to continue talks with the EU to find a compromise and ignore the more extreme demands of the DUP
However, comparing this to Putin's war is as I said ridiculous
On the flip side we have unfillable vacancies. Hospitality. Industrial. Care. Jobs that people either don't want, or can't afford to take. The answer isn't "cut benefits" as some will screech - you already have people at food banks refusing some food offers as they have no means to cook having had power / gas cut off. Jobs need to pay more but when the job is a small cafe and the revenue doesn't cover labour plus taxes plus inflating utilities and material costs, they can't pay more.
No wonder that Bonzo the Clown wants to talk about sending people back to the office.
The moment someone threatens first-use of nuclear weapons for a minor strategic aim, we have to call their bluff.
Punter set for £367,200 win if Liverpool land historic quadruple but could take £22k cash out right now
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/betting-tips/18531976/liverpool-quadruple-bet-betfair-odds-lucky-punter-football-betting/
Note in passing that The Sun correctly refers to a quadruple and not tetralogy or tetrapak or whatever term Scouse pseuds use.
Should the punter cash out the bet for £22,000 or let it run? Current odds for the remaining two legs are: 7/1 Premier League; 8/15 Champions League.
It will be an odd experience after all this time doing stuff by Zoom.
Wish me luck!
But then I do not bet and I am cautious
BoZo wanted unicorns, and the EU have not delivered them
Places like Lyme Regis and Sidmouth, like other parts of the Home Counties, need more homes for people as demand is outstripping supply. But, as we saw with the Chesham and Amersham by election, NIMBYISM trumps anything else. As long as the new homes are built elsewhere that is all that matters.