round the corners dazzle camouflage paint the floor underneath with stripes to disorient someone ascending vary the riser length between each step
This is easy! I could think of 20 ways
I initially was thinking of adding a crocodile on every step but that effectively increased the step depth making it vastly safer
Butter the steps. Butter them hourly.
Say you are coming downstairs then as you slip on the first one you probably get so much momentum with the additional butter you'll glide down the stairs like they re a slide.
I think you need to alternate between butter and sandpaper.
Butter, honey, glue, large hungry bear with an itchy bum. In that order.
You see, adding a bear makes them look too dangerous and then people just wouldn't use them, making them safer.
In that case the bear is a metaphor for more butter
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The reason i disagree with you, once it gets to the vonc it changes the current question - rather than is Boris weak enough, his ratings bad enough, his crimes bad enough, his speech and commons performances bad enough, it becomes is he strong enough, his performances and record strong enough to expect a recovery. It swings round to needing Boris positives, reasons to believe, that he can turn round a losing position, reasons to believe it’s better to carry on with partygate, that’s far from over, stick with Boris bad ratings, that are truly bad, rather than twist on a fresh hand of cards.
Once it gets to the vonc the Boris team have to change their approach, fear won’t work if you are about to be out of power, they are the team that starts on zero needing to get to 180 by filling the electors with hope, positives, and reasons to believe in a fight back.
Anyone seriously thinking of running could always commission a poll for the Sundays of 2019 Tory deserters and whether removing Boris would make them reconsider........
No it doesn’t work like that Woolie. 🙂
In politics once someone is wearing a crown they look different, and are considered in a different way.
Politics is more professional than you give it credit for. This moment isn’t about listening to voters, but plotting the chess moves way ahead of the voters, which new King or Queen has that lustre wearing the crown you know the current wearer will never achieve from now.
This is why i'm not King but just a funny old cotter you see
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
We need to be sending people to Rwanda for it to discourage anyone from getting on a dinghy and setting sail for our rainy haven. This is welcome news therefore.
I quite like the Government being in desperation mode. It would be nice if they were so desperate to placate the voting public all the time.
I'm all in favour of the government building a proper offshore processing facility, and prioritising those who go there directly, rather than trekking across the Med and Europe to get to the UK, and then submitting an asylum request.
I am more sceptical of us just dumping a small number of people in Rwanda, and then not actually doing any processing. It seems more like it's designed for tabloid headlines than to actually solve the problem.
Yes, 4 offshore processing facilities would be good, and the successful applicants should then be brought to Britain. But not prioritising those who go there directly - ONLY processing claims there.
Hang on there:
If the asylum seeker is an Irish citizen coming from Ireland, because they fear persecution from the Irish government, then you want them to go to Rwanda?
Yeah, yeah, I know my scenario is unlikely, but that's not the point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to go to the nearest/most convenient place, but it's entirely possible that place will be the UK.
No, I'd have one in Europe; I was thinking Romania.
I don't have a problem with us saying "your duty is to go to the nearest/easiest" point (and indeed, the generally accepted view is that you should claim asylum in the first safe place you reach). In some cases, that will be the UK. I have no problem with people being transported to off-shore processing, but it is clearly wrong to deny people the ability to claim in the first safe place they can reach, if that place is the UK.
Ireland has a common travel area with the UK. Clearly people could flee to the North and over the Irish Sea if they wished.
But the point of a rule being a rule is that there aren't exceptions. For it to work, four centres, well-placed - better placed than the UK itself in relation to world trouble spots, would be the established hubs, and that would eliminate assylum being used as a route to economic migration completely. It might actually result in more successful claimants than before, but that would be fine.
The easiest way to get rid of economic migration is to make it impossible to work in the UK without proper authorisation, as happens in (for example) Norway.
If everyone is sent for off-shore processing, irrespective of where they claimed, that would also eliminate the economic pull argument.
Yes, but here we're talking about the same thing. Arrivals in the UK under the system I am proposing would be gathered up and taken to an overseas centre. Because some would still arrive here in the way you suggest. Besides, there would be transport bringing the successful applicants back, so you'd have empty transport heading out there.
Yes, I am sure that your system would work, but it goes against our freedom loving ways!
Ah, I misunderstood you, and you me.
I was suggesting that all claims would be processed off-shore, but those who chose to go to the off-shore center instead of arriving in the UK (assuming they weren't coming from Ireland etc.) would see their claims assessed first. I thought you were suggesting that we simply wouldn't process the claims of those who claimed in the UK.
Well technically, we wouldn't. But yes, their claims would still be processed. And if successful, they would be brought back to the UK (rather than palming them off on Rwanda). The issue srurrounding trafficking and economic migrants seems to me to centre on the time spent at liberty in the UK whilst the claim is processed. Eliminate that opportunity, and you shut down the pull factor. Nobody is going to get in a pedalo and come here only to be sent back to Romania or India etc. except perhaps the odd genuine assylum seeker in dire straits.
And yes, I did misunderstand you - what we've proposed are very similar systems it would seem.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The VONC will be a bit like the Brexit vote. People will take their chance to make the change. If it gets to 54 Boris is toast. That's why team Boris tried so hard to prevent it last time and are bribing MPs with junior government roles this time. They know the game is up the moment Brady announces the vote.
Additionally, I don't see how Rishi can go for the leadership he's badly damaged by receiving a FPN and would also be faced with a pretty sharp resignation of Starmer has to resign. Even without team Boris stabbing him in the back he'd be terminally damaged by the FPN.
The next leader will have to come from someone who is completely clean wrt partygate, Ben Wallace would be my bet. He speaks to the selectorate in a way that other candidates don't.
Well, who stands?
I think the following are certs: Liz Truss
The following are likely: Priti Patel Ben Wallace Sajiv Javid Jeremy Hunt Tom Tugendhat Penny Mordaunt
I think the following are unlikely: Rishi Sunak Kwasi Kwarteng Dominic Raab Michael Gove
Of those, my tips would be Patel (because she's so long... no, not short at all... sorry), Wallace, and Morduant.
I'd add Steve Barclay as likely and a fairly reasonable prospect as one of the final two.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
Nandy gets a coronation? There's no one else acceptable to all.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The VONC will be a bit like the Brexit vote. People will take their chance to make the change. If it gets to 54 Boris is toast. That's why team Boris tried so hard to prevent it last time and are bribing MPs with junior government roles this time. They know the game is up the moment Brady announces the vote.
Additionally, I don't see how Rishi can go for the leadership he's badly damaged by receiving a FPN and would also be faced with a pretty sharp resignation of Starmer has to resign. Even without team Boris stabbing him in the back he'd be terminally damaged by the FPN.
The next leader will have to come from someone who is completely clean wrt partygate, Ben Wallace would be my bet. He speaks to the selectorate in a way that other candidates don't.
Well, who stands?
I think the following are certs: Liz Truss
The following are likely: Priti Patel Ben Wallace Sajiv Javid Jeremy Hunt Tom Tugendhat Penny Mordaunt
I think the following are unlikely: Rishi Sunak Kwasi Kwarteng Dominic Raab Michael Gove
Of those, my tips would be Patel (because she's so long... no, not short at all... sorry), Wallace, and Morduant.
I'd add Steve Barclay as likely and a fairly reasonable prospect as one of the final two.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
Nandy gets a coronation? There's no one else acceptable to all.
What a mess this vengeful dog might try and make to save his stupid skin. Ugh,
We need to be sending people to Rwanda for it to discourage anyone from getting on a dinghy and setting sail for our rainy haven. This is welcome news therefore.
I quite like the Government being in desperation mode. It would be nice if they were so desperate to placate the voting public all the time.
I'm all in favour of the government building a proper offshore processing facility, and prioritising those who go there directly, rather than trekking across the Med and Europe to get to the UK, and then submitting an asylum request.
I am more sceptical of us just dumping a small number of people in Rwanda, and then not actually doing any processing. It seems more like it's designed for tabloid headlines than to actually solve the problem.
Yes, 4 offshore processing facilities would be good, and the successful applicants should then be brought to Britain. But not prioritising those who go there directly - ONLY processing claims there.
Hang on there:
If the asylum seeker is an Irish citizen coming from Ireland, because they fear persecution from the Irish government, then you want them to go to Rwanda?
Yeah, yeah, I know my scenario is unlikely, but that's not the point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to go to the nearest/most convenient place, but it's entirely possible that place will be the UK.
No, I'd have one in Europe; I was thinking Romania.
I don't have a problem with us saying "your duty is to go to the nearest/easiest" point (and indeed, the generally accepted view is that you should claim asylum in the first safe place you reach). In some cases, that will be the UK. I have no problem with people being transported to off-shore processing, but it is clearly wrong to deny people the ability to claim in the first safe place they can reach, if that place is the UK.
Ireland has a common travel area with the UK. Clearly people could flee to the North and over the Irish Sea if they wished.
But the point of a rule being a rule is that there aren't exceptions. For it to work, four centres, well-placed - better placed than the UK itself in relation to world trouble spots, would be the established hubs, and that would eliminate assylum being used as a route to economic migration completely. It might actually result in more successful claimants than before, but that would be fine.
The easiest way to get rid of economic migration is to make it impossible to work in the UK without proper authorisation, as happens in (for example) Norway.
If everyone is sent for off-shore processing, irrespective of where they claimed, that would also eliminate the economic pull argument.
Yes, but here we're talking about the same thing. Arrivals in the UK under the system I am proposing would be gathered up and taken to an overseas centre. Because some would still arrive here in the way you suggest. Besides, there would be transport bringing the successful applicants back, so you'd have empty transport heading out there.
Yes, I am sure that your system would work, but it goes against our freedom loving ways!
Ah, I misunderstood you, and you me.
I was suggesting that all claims would be processed off-shore, but those who chose to go to the off-shore center instead of arriving in the UK (assuming they weren't coming from Ireland etc.) would see their claims assessed first. I thought you were suggesting that we simply wouldn't process the claims of those who claimed in the UK.
Well technically, we wouldn't. But yes, their claims would still be processed. And if successful, they would be brought back to the UK (rather than palming them off on Rwanda). The issue srurrounding trafficking and economic migrants seems to me to centre on the time spent at liberty in the UK whilst the claim is processed. Eliminate that opportunity, and you shut down the pull factor. Nobody is going to get in a pedalo and come here only to be sent back to Romania or India etc. except perhaps the odd genuine assylum seeker in dire straits.
And yes, I did misunderstand you - what we've proposed are very similar systems it would seem.
We still do need to crack down on illegal working in the UK, though.
Because those boat people crossing the channel aren't actually planning on claiming asylum. On the contrary, their number one goal (nine times out of ten) is working in the informal economy in the UK; claiming asylum is just what they do if their boat is apprehended on the way over.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Winners knowing when to get out or parties genuinely being good at picking moments?
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The VONC will be a bit like the Brexit vote. People will take their chance to make the change. If it gets to 54 Boris is toast. That's why team Boris tried so hard to prevent it last time and are bribing MPs with junior government roles this time. They know the game is up the moment Brady announces the vote.
Additionally, I don't see how Rishi can go for the leadership he's badly damaged by receiving a FPN and would also be faced with a pretty sharp resignation of Starmer has to resign. Even without team Boris stabbing him in the back he'd be terminally damaged by the FPN.
The next leader will have to come from someone who is completely clean wrt partygate, Ben Wallace would be my bet. He speaks to the selectorate in a way that other candidates don't.
Well, who stands?
I think the following are certs: Liz Truss
The following are likely: Priti Patel Ben Wallace Sajiv Javid Jeremy Hunt Tom Tugendhat Penny Mordaunt
I think the following are unlikely: Rishi Sunak Kwasi Kwarteng Dominic Raab Michael Gove
Of those, my tips would be Patel (because she's so long... no, not short at all... sorry), Wallace, and Morduant.
I'd add Steve Barclay as likely and a fairly reasonable prospect as one of the final two.
Well, let's keep it simple shall we?
Sell: Sunak Gove Hunt Raab Kwarteng
Buy: Barclay Patel Wallance Morduant
Big loss if one of my sells comes in; big profit if it's one of my buys; small profit the field.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
Different police force, who might not have invented this new Metropolitan political police concept of purdah in criminal investigation.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
Not going to happen; Boris would be saying:
a) When there's a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis, it would be destabilising to try to replace me and have a leadership election, so don't do it. b) But if you do try to replace me, I'll call a GE, despite the destabilising impact during a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The VONC will be a bit like the Brexit vote. People will take their chance to make the change. If it gets to 54 Boris is toast. That's why team Boris tried so hard to prevent it last time and are bribing MPs with junior government roles this time. They know the game is up the moment Brady announces the vote.
Additionally, I don't see how Rishi can go for the leadership he's badly damaged by receiving a FPN and would also be faced with a pretty sharp resignation of Starmer has to resign. Even without team Boris stabbing him in the back he'd be terminally damaged by the FPN.
The next leader will have to come from someone who is completely clean wrt partygate, Ben Wallace would be my bet. He speaks to the selectorate in a way that other candidates don't.
Well, who stands?
I think the following are certs: Liz Truss
The following are likely: Priti Patel Ben Wallace Sajiv Javid Jeremy Hunt Tom Tugendhat Penny Mordaunt
I think the following are unlikely: Rishi Sunak Kwasi Kwarteng Dominic Raab Michael Gove
Of those, my tips would be Patel (because she's so long... no, not short at all... sorry), Wallace, and Morduant.
I'd add Steve Barclay as likely and a fairly reasonable prospect as one of the final two.
Well, let's keep it simple shall we?
Sell: Sunak Gove Hunt Raab Kwarteng
Buy: Barclay Patel Wallance Morduant
Big loss if one of my sells comes in; big profit if it's one of my buys; small profit the field.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
If he calls an election on Monday I would have thought he's even more likely to be ousted in a VONC on the grounds that he is clearly insane.
We need to be sending people to Rwanda for it to discourage anyone from getting on a dinghy and setting sail for our rainy haven. This is welcome news therefore.
I quite like the Government being in desperation mode. It would be nice if they were so desperate to placate the voting public all the time.
I'm all in favour of the government building a proper offshore processing facility, and prioritising those who go there directly, rather than trekking across the Med and Europe to get to the UK, and then submitting an asylum request.
I am more sceptical of us just dumping a small number of people in Rwanda, and then not actually doing any processing. It seems more like it's designed for tabloid headlines than to actually solve the problem.
Yes, 4 offshore processing facilities would be good, and the successful applicants should then be brought to Britain. But not prioritising those who go there directly - ONLY processing claims there.
Hang on there:
If the asylum seeker is an Irish citizen coming from Ireland, because they fear persecution from the Irish government, then you want them to go to Rwanda?
Yeah, yeah, I know my scenario is unlikely, but that's not the point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to go to the nearest/most convenient place, but it's entirely possible that place will be the UK.
No, I'd have one in Europe; I was thinking Romania.
I don't have a problem with us saying "your duty is to go to the nearest/easiest" point (and indeed, the generally accepted view is that you should claim asylum in the first safe place you reach). In some cases, that will be the UK. I have no problem with people being transported to off-shore processing, but it is clearly wrong to deny people the ability to claim in the first safe place they can reach, if that place is the UK.
Ireland has a common travel area with the UK. Clearly people could flee to the North and over the Irish Sea if they wished.
But the point of a rule being a rule is that there aren't exceptions. For it to work, four centres, well-placed - better placed than the UK itself in relation to world trouble spots, would be the established hubs, and that would eliminate assylum being used as a route to economic migration completely. It might actually result in more successful claimants than before, but that would be fine.
The easiest way to get rid of economic migration is to make it impossible to work in the UK without proper authorisation, as happens in (for example) Norway.
If everyone is sent for off-shore processing, irrespective of where they claimed, that would also eliminate the economic pull argument.
Yes, but here we're talking about the same thing. Arrivals in the UK under the system I am proposing would be gathered up and taken to an overseas centre. Because some would still arrive here in the way you suggest. Besides, there would be transport bringing the successful applicants back, so you'd have empty transport heading out there.
Yes, I am sure that your system would work, but it goes against our freedom loving ways!
Ah, I misunderstood you, and you me.
I was suggesting that all claims would be processed off-shore, but those who chose to go to the off-shore center instead of arriving in the UK (assuming they weren't coming from Ireland etc.) would see their claims assessed first. I thought you were suggesting that we simply wouldn't process the claims of those who claimed in the UK.
Well technically, we wouldn't. But yes, their claims would still be processed. And if successful, they would be brought back to the UK (rather than palming them off on Rwanda). The issue srurrounding trafficking and economic migrants seems to me to centre on the time spent at liberty in the UK whilst the claim is processed. Eliminate that opportunity, and you shut down the pull factor. Nobody is going to get in a pedalo and come here only to be sent back to Romania or India etc. except perhaps the odd genuine assylum seeker in dire straits.
And yes, I did misunderstand you - what we've proposed are very similar systems it would seem.
We still do need to crack down on illegal working in the UK, though.
Because those boat people crossing the channel aren't actually planning on claiming asylum. On the contrary, their number one goal (nine times out of ten) is working in the informal economy in the UK; claiming asylum is just what they do if their boat is apprehended on the way over.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
If he calls an election on Monday I would have thought he's even more likely to be ousted in a VONC on the grounds that he is clearly insane.
Or not at all, to avoid what might happen, pari passu, to Labour?
I'm quite interested as to whether Boris will annoint a successor when he decides to go.
Would a Johnson annointing benefit the annointed, or be the kiss of death?
I'm inclined to think the latter.
Depends on the membership, if it gets that far. Even with them being a bit ructious at the moment, could there be a candidate who is the 'Take revenge on the plotters' Boris ally, who they rally behind?
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
Different police force, who might not have invented this new Metropolitan political police concept of purdah in criminal investigation.
Same police force. It was Durham constabulary who didn't announce an investigation until after the locals. It will be Durham constabulary who announce a FPN.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
Not going to happen; Boris would be saying:
a) When there's a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis, it would be destabilising to try to replace me and have a leadership election, so don't do it. b) But if you do try to replace me, I'll call a GE, despite the destabilising impact during a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis.
How has betting against Boris being inconsistent and hypocritical worked out so far?
Good evening all. Back from a day at St. Michael's Mount and Porthleven. St. Michael's Mount is perfect: a fairytale castle from the first moment you see it. Difficult to believe the rest of West Cornwall can come up with anything else to match SMM and St. Ives - which must surely both be amongst the top five sights of England - but I look forward to seeing how the rest of the week pans out. Porthleven, meanwhile, is just a very pleasant little harbour around which to while away a couple of hours. It's probably not even in the top ten of such little harbour towns in Cornwall, though anywhere else would be remarkable. Happy to report weather still largely clement and kids still largely agreeable. I'm still convinced this is the best family holiday in Europe, marred only by the slight pang of regret that I didn't spend more time here pre-kids doing the SW coastal path.
Try the Lizard. Kynance Cove and Cadgwith. Go to Zennor and feel the haunted weirdness as you drive on to Morvah. Go to Botallack mine. Right on the cliffs. Walk around Lamorna. Crawl through the men an tol. Go fishing on the helford. Kayak from mylor to the Pandora inn at restronguet. Go to st Agnes for proper cornishness
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
Different police force, who might not have invented this new Metropolitan political police concept of purdah in criminal investigation.
Same police force. It was Durham constabulary who didn't announce an investigation until after the locals. It will be Durham constabulary who announce a FPN.
Hmm. Point taken, ta. Did they explicitly say they'd decided but were delaying, Met style?
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
Different police force, who might not have invented this new Metropolitan political police concept of purdah in criminal investigation.
Same police force. It was Durham constabulary who didn't announce an investigation until after the locals. It will be Durham constabulary who announce a FPN.
Hmm. Point taken, ta. Did they explicitly say they'd decided but were delaying, Met style?
It was announced on the morning of the Friday after the locals, so it's a fair assumption. I'm not sure if it was explicitly mentioned.
Good evening all. Back from a day at St. Michael's Mount and Porthleven. St. Michael's Mount is perfect: a fairytale castle from the first moment you see it. Difficult to believe the rest of West Cornwall can come up with anything else to match SMM and St. Ives - which must surely both be amongst the top five sights of England - but I look forward to seeing how the rest of the week pans out. Porthleven, meanwhile, is just a very pleasant little harbour around which to while away a couple of hours. It's probably not even in the top ten of such little harbour towns in Cornwall, though anywhere else would be remarkable. Happy to report weather still largely clement and kids still largely agreeable. I'm still convinced this is the best family holiday in Europe, marred only by the slight pang of regret that I didn't spend more time here pre-kids doing the SW coastal path.
Try the Lizard. Kynance Cove and Cadgwith. Go to Zennor and feel the haunted weirdness as you drive on to Morvah. Go to Botallack mine. Right on the cliffs. Walk around Lamorna. Crawl through the men an tol. Go fishing on the helford. Kayak from mylor to the Pandora inn at restronguet. Go to st Agnes for proper cornishness
Pint in the Driftwood! But it's a long, steep walk back up the hill. Better to find a boat on the beach and sleep it off.
Is it possible that Brady might tell one or two Tory MPs to consider withdrawing their letters of confidence before resubmitting them after the Jubilee weekend?
Seems unnecessary - if he doesn't want to spoil the mood this weekend he can just hold off telling anyone. It is a bank holiday, non working period after all.
Good evening all. Back from a day at St. Michael's Mount and Porthleven. St. Michael's Mount is perfect: a fairytale castle from the first moment you see it. Difficult to believe the rest of West Cornwall can come up with anything else to match SMM and St. Ives - which must surely both be amongst the top five sights of England - but I look forward to seeing how the rest of the week pans out. Porthleven, meanwhile, is just a very pleasant little harbour around which to while away a couple of hours. It's probably not even in the top ten of such little harbour towns in Cornwall, though anywhere else would be remarkable. Happy to report weather still largely clement and kids still largely agreeable. I'm still convinced this is the best family holiday in Europe, marred only by the slight pang of regret that I didn't spend more time here pre-kids doing the SW coastal path.
Try the Lizard. Kynance Cove and Cadgwith. Go to Zennor and feel the haunted weirdness as you drive on to Morvah. Go to Botallack mine. Right on the cliffs. Walk around Lamorna. Crawl through the men an tol. Go fishing on the helford. Kayak from mylor to the Pandora inn at restronguet. Go to st Agnes for proper cornishness
No time, alas, no time. We are only here for another three days. I am hoping to do the Roseland Peninsula tomorrow, and Kynance Cove on Thursday. I think the kids will find both interesting. But we also need to balance this with finding time for just playing. And there are plenty of opportunities for this too - beaches and parks and so on. But as you allude, the sheer density in West Cornwall of things to see and do is quite astounding.
Fair play to the bid team - they showed the judges Haworth, Saltaire, Bingley 5-rise, Ilkley Moor. Basically, kept them well away from the arse end of Bradford. And it worked.
Maybe while we are all soaking up the culture we'll forget that Northern Poorhouse Rail is completely bypassing the city?
Bradford. City of Culture, and a crap rail service.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
Even Attlee fought the 1955 election as LOTO. So he didn't go swiftly or quietly.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Exactly. This is one of the most clear-cut Good versus Evil wars of my lifetime at least. It's unprovoked, the justifications given are laughable and frequently contradictory, it has not been given any international backing, and the intent appears to be straight up genocidal.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
Even Attlee fought the 1955 election. So he didn't go swiftly.
Ooooh i thought he went before it! Major saw out the 97 parliament so nobody has lost and done an immediate runner from parliament itself or gone mid parliament after a new leader elected.
Fair play to the bid team - they showed the judges Haworth, Saltaire, Bingley 5-rise, Ilkley Moor. Basically, kept them well away from the arse end of Bradford. And it worked.
Maybe while we are all soaking up the culture we'll forget that Northern Poorhouse Rail is completely bypassing the city?
Bradford. City of Culture, and a crap rail service.
The city of culture is meant to go to a city that people don't think has any culture. That's the point. It sort of works if you've done some investments in cultural things and you want to show them off. Dundee lost out to Hull fairly recently. There would be very little point in Bath and Edinburgh duking it out every year.
It's the same with the Europe-wide competition, which contrary to the poster above, I think UK cities can still enter?
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Some of the logic is, erm... interesting. Putin went to war because he had to because Ukraine was developing militarily, and once the war started a load of weapons were sent to Ukr proving that Vlad was right all along.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
Fuck all of these apologists for Russia.
And to think how much time the likes of NYT banging about Trump / Russia interference in elections.....gone full circle and printing Russia propaganda.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Bat shit i think? Crazy, i know
Both, it seems. Bat shit opens up a better attack; I fluffed that opportunity.
Fair play to the bid team - they showed the judges Haworth, Saltaire, Bingley 5-rise, Ilkley Moor. Basically, kept them well away from the arse end of Bradford. And it worked.
Maybe while we are all soaking up the culture we'll forget that Northern Poorhouse Rail is completely bypassing the city?
Bradford. City of Culture, and a crap rail service.
The city of culture is meant to go to a city that people don't think has any culture. That's the point. It sort of works if you've done some investments in cultural things and you want to show them off. Dundee lost out to Hull fairly recently. There would be very little point in Bath and Edinburgh duking it out every year.
It's the same with the Europe-wide competition, which contrary to the poster above, I think UK cities can still enter?
Agreed. I remember going to Liverpool a couple of years after they had it, and they were really proud not just of the title but of the things it had generated - I remember a taxi-driver enthusiastically telling me about a great exhibition.
Is it possible that Brady might tell one or two Tory MPs to consider withdrawing their letters of confidence before resubmitting them after the Jubilee weekend?
Seems unnecessary - if he doesn't want to spoil the mood this weekend he can just hold off telling anyone. It is a bank holiday, non working period after all.
As the tweet I posted earlier today pointed out there is no process of Brady checking people still want to keep their letters in his postbox.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
The article - as is typical of the type - suggests that Russia had no choice but to attack Ukraine because otherwise Ukraine was going to attack Russia.
Let me share some quotes:
On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote. “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”
This is a faithful account of the war that President Vladimir Putin has claimed to be fighting. “There were constant supplies of the most modern military equipment,” Mr. Putin said at Russia’s annual Victory Parade on May 9, referring to the foreign arming of Ukraine. “The danger was growing every day.”
Whether he was right to worry about Russia’s security depends on one’s perspective. Western news reports tend to belittle him.
The rocky course of the war in Ukraine thus far has vindicated Mr. Putin’s diagnosis, if not his conduct.
Utter bullshit, of course.
The reality is that Ukraine was never going to attack a nuclear armed Russia. They never had any realistic hope of regaining Crimea, and were making little (if any) progress in the East of the country. The vast, vast majority of the modern military kit that has been sent, has been sent *because* Russia invaded.
Don't buy this if there's a vote he'll win it. Why? Because. Deep down they know he's a dud. They always did. But he'd win them an election. Do they think that now? Maybe. But maybe not. And I don't buy this payroll vote either. There must be a hundred juniors and bag carriers looking at some of the idiots in Cabinet thinking. I could do that better. Only idiots who are self-aware won't be. And I don't buy the no successor either. Almost anyone. Almost. Would be an upgrade. It's a secret ballot. He has no faction, no friends, and no plan.
That's largely my view. But then I thunk back to GE2019, and remember the speech from the winning candidate in Blyth Valley - the chike of emotion when Boris was mentioned. I wonder whether that was typical of the new intake, and how much if that loyalty remains.
Exactly, he knew he owed his victory in large part to Boris. Would Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove as leader have seen him become the first Tory ever to win Blyth Valley? I doubt it
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
Yes, I think Johnson survives the confidence vote, like May did as a wounded beast.
It is risky to provoke a leadership candidate unless sure that your faction will win.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Bat shit i think? Crazy, i know
Both, it seems. Bat shit opens up a better attack; I fluffed that opportunity.
Ive just discovered its also seabird shit. Pb is learning me good.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Unfortunately, the primary motivating factor of not a few on the left in the US has shifted from "we need to defeat Putin" to "oh shit, the conflict in Ukraine is increasing our chances we get fucked in the midterms due to the voters blaming us for inflation which the war is fuelling". There is also an element that it's increasingly obvious the great Russian threat to US democracy that has been trumpeted since 2016 is a sham and that, not only is Russia a paper tiger but that it couldn't organise a p1ss up in a brewery, never mind masterminding the illicit takeover of the US. So far better to get Russia off the pages ASAP so as not to remind people how ridiculous their claims sounded in the first place.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
The article - as is typical of the type - suggests that Russia had no choice but to attack Ukraine because otherwise Ukraine was going to attack Russia.
Let me share some quotes:
On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote. “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”
This is a faithful account of the war that President Vladimir Putin has claimed to be fighting. “There were constant supplies of the most modern military equipment,” Mr. Putin said at Russia’s annual Victory Parade on May 9, referring to the foreign arming of Ukraine. “The danger was growing every day.”
Whether he was right to worry about Russia’s security depends on one’s perspective. Western news reports tend to belittle him.
The rocky course of the war in Ukraine thus far has vindicated Mr. Putin’s diagnosis, if not his conduct.
Utter bullshit, of course.
The reality is that Ukraine was never going to attack a nuclear armed Russia. They never had any realistic hope of regaining Crimea, and were making little (if any) progress in the East of the country. The vast, vast majority of the modern military kit that has been sent, has been sent *because* Russia invaded.
Sorry, that piece make me REALLY MAD. It implies that the US was backing Ukraine militarily in attempting to retake Crimea, when the charter says exactly the opposite. It says "reaffirms its full support for international efforts, including in the Normandy Format, aimed at negotiating a diplomatic resolution".
Fair play to the bid team - they showed the judges Haworth, Saltaire, Bingley 5-rise, Ilkley Moor. Basically, kept them well away from the arse end of Bradford. And it worked.
Maybe while we are all soaking up the culture we'll forget that Northern Poorhouse Rail is completely bypassing the city?
Bradford. City of Culture, and a crap rail service.
One of my all time favourite football chants was by Hull City fans in 2014: “city of culture, we know what we are.”
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Exactly. This is one of the most clear-cut Good versus Evil wars of my lifetime at least. It's unprovoked, the justifications given are laughable and frequently contradictory, it has not been given any international backing, and the intent appears to be straight up genocidal.
Anyone who doesn't condemn Russia should be re-christened "Neville" and made to wave a paper saying "peace inb our times"
Don't buy this if there's a vote he'll win it. Why? Because. Deep down they know he's a dud. They always did. But he'd win them an election. Do they think that now? Maybe. But maybe not. And I don't buy this payroll vote either. There must be a hundred juniors and bag carriers looking at some of the idiots in Cabinet thinking. I could do that better. Only idiots who are self-aware won't be. And I don't buy the no successor either. Almost anyone. Almost. Would be an upgrade. It's a secret ballot. He has no faction, no friends, and no plan.
That's largely my view. But then I thunk back to GE2019, and remember the speech from the winning candidate in Blyth Valley - the chike of emotion when Boris was mentioned. I wonder whether that was typical of the new intake, and how much if that loyalty remains.
Exactly, he knew he owed his victory in large part to Boris. Would Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove as leader have seen him become the first Tory ever to win Blyth Valley? I doubt it
They wouldnt have been the first to lose Westminster council, or been struggling to be competitive in Tiverton either
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Exactly. This is one of the most clear-cut Good versus Evil wars of my lifetime at least. It's unprovoked, the justifications given are laughable and frequently contradictory, it has not been given any international backing, and the intent appears to be straight up genocidal.
Anyone who doesn't condemn Russia should be re-christened "Neville" and made to wave a paper saying "peace inb our times"
Oh, I have a lot more respect for Neville Chamberlain than for those who seek to appease Russia. At least Neville recognised that deferring war allowed the UK to build up its armed forces.
As predicted by some on here, ok me, the “fiasco au stade de France” is impacting wider French politics
Are they suggesting that perhaps some porkie pies have been told?
THIS is fascinating
“Macron saw red because the spectacle offered around the Stade de France on May 28 was “pitiful”, “shameful”, “unworthy of France”, as he said in front of a few relatives.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
It was John Major who started the notion that losing an election should be followed immediately by resignation. Until then it was common to continue as Leader of the Opposition.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
The article - as is typical of the type - suggests that Russia had no choice but to attack Ukraine because otherwise Ukraine was going to attack Russia.
Let me share some quotes:
On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote. “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”
This is a faithful account of the war that President Vladimir Putin has claimed to be fighting. “There were constant supplies of the most modern military equipment,” Mr. Putin said at Russia’s annual Victory Parade on May 9, referring to the foreign arming of Ukraine. “The danger was growing every day.”
Whether he was right to worry about Russia’s security depends on one’s perspective. Western news reports tend to belittle him.
The rocky course of the war in Ukraine thus far has vindicated Mr. Putin’s diagnosis, if not his conduct.
Utter bullshit, of course.
The reality is that Ukraine was never going to attack a nuclear armed Russia. They never had any realistic hope of regaining Crimea, and were making little (if any) progress in the East of the country. The vast, vast majority of the modern military kit that has been sent, has been sent *because* Russia invaded.
Preposterous stuff. It is possible, though I disagree, to think we should not get involved, but as glw notes a lot of the justifications given by Russia are contradictory in any case. Their 'we are vastly more powerful than pitiful Ukraine nazis, but also those nazis were planning on attacking us despite being so inferior' argument is one of the more ridiculous (Yes, I'm paraphrasing), and it is pretty silly to give it credence even in watered down form.
The argument that vindicating his 'diagnosis' is not doing so for his conduct is pretty ridiculous as well. If someone is arguing his pretexts are, in fact, justified ones, then it is arguing his actions are justified as well, otherwise it makes no sense.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The VONC will be a bit like the Brexit vote. People will take their chance to make the change. If it gets to 54 Boris is toast. That's why team Boris tried so hard to prevent it last time and are bribing MPs with junior government roles this time. They know the game is up the moment Brady announces the vote.
Additionally, I don't see how Rishi can go for the leadership he's badly damaged by receiving a FPN and would also be faced with a pretty sharp resignation of Starmer has to resign. Even without team Boris stabbing him in the back he'd be terminally damaged by the FPN.
The next leader will have to come from someone who is completely clean wrt partygate, Ben Wallace would be my bet. He speaks to the selectorate in a way that other candidates don't.
Well, who stands?
I think the following are certs: Liz Truss
The following are likely: Priti Patel Ben Wallace Sajiv Javid Jeremy Hunt Tom Tugendhat Penny Mordaunt
I think the following are unlikely: Rishi Sunak Kwasi Kwarteng Dominic Raab Michael Gove
Of those, my tips would be Patel (because she's so long... no, not short at all... sorry), Wallace, and Morduant.
I'd add Steve Barclay as likely and a fairly reasonable prospect as one of the final two.
Left and right options most likely? And there could be backlash against Boris cabinet in getting nominations in later rounds.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Disraeli died as LOTO and didnt get the chance to fight again so yeah, its back to Melbourne!
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
I'm fascinated on what his reasoning might be - one thing that can usually be agreed upon is that an outright and unprovoked war of conquest is at least blessedly unambiguous, even if most of the world outside Europe and North AMerican does not care enough about it to do anything.
Seems to be basically based on the views of "Henri Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy" who seems to be arguing that West is fuelling the fire.
I don't trust a guy whose surname sounds like a word for birdshit
Bat shit i think? Crazy, i know
Both, it seems. Bat shit opens up a better attack; I fluffed that opportunity.
Ive just discovered its also seabird shit. Pb is learning me good.
It's very valuable isn't it? Featured on The Onedin Line.
Is it possible that Brady might tell one or two Tory MPs to consider withdrawing their letters of confidence before resubmitting them after the Jubilee weekend?
Seems unnecessary - if he doesn't want to spoil the mood this weekend he can just hold off telling anyone. It is a bank holiday, non working period after all.
As the tweet I posted earlier today pointed out there is no process of Brady checking people still want to keep their letters in his postbox.
Never thought there was, personally. Unnecessary and open to abuse, when he should appear to be above the fray.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Disraeli died as LOTO and fudnt get the chance to fight again so yeah, its back to Melbourne!
He had, however, announced in advance of his death that he would be resigning before the next election.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Wow. That's some stat. It is vanishingly rare. Being an "election winner" is actually far more of a booster for Big Dog than it at first appears.
Thinking outside the box now. If he did use an FPN on Starmer to call an election... The obvious Labour candidate is one ACL Blair. History is his friend here.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Disraeli died as LOTO and fudnt get the chance to fight again so yeah, its back to Melbourne!
He had, however, announced in advance of his death that he would be resigning before the next election.
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
Fuck all of these apologists for Russia.
And to think how much time the likes of NYT banging about Trump / Russia interference in elections.....gone full circle and printing Russia propaganda.
The article in NYT is clearly marked "Opinion" and "Guest Essay". The role of the press is to further debate. Just because they print an article doesn't mean the entire newspaper agrees with every word.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
I do wonder whether May can manage 25 more years of sulking and haunting to beat Heaths record. She seems to be enjoying the schadenfreude than the top job.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Wow. That's some stat. It is vanishingly rare. Being an "election winner" is actually far more of a booster for Big Dog than it at first appears.
Not quite that. There is another reason. If an election winner looks like a liability, they tend to get dumped. See Thatcher, Macmillan, Eden, Lloyd George... so the party fights the election with a new leader.
And of course, there is the fact that many politicians until the 1960s did ride out defeats, sometimes for strange reasons. Baldwin, for example, might have been ousted in 1930 had he not decided to stay on to spite Beaverbrook.
The FLSOJ is on course to lose his seat, he won't call an early election.
Not sure that analysis works. It's not so much being MP as PM that counts. Two options:
(a) he has had a Tory Party vonc and won it - he's OK for a year, but only one year, and will his position be any better when the time for the next TPV comes round? So he might as well call an election now before the tractor with the financial manure-spreader comes round.
(b) he's not had a Tory Party vonc - he might as well call the election before someone puts in the 54th letter, or some other event happens, and have a go in the hope of winning another 4-5 years, ditto ditto manure spreader.
In both cases, having Labour leadership possibly inactivated might seem a big bonus.
And who cares about Uxbridge if he has lost Downing St? The two probabilities are fairly strongly correlated of course.
So perhaps he will call an election on Monday?
He could gamble that if he does call an election then Starmer and Rayner get FPNs in mid-campaign, giving Labour a choice between (a) breaking their promise (b) leaving the party leaderless and (c) promising to resign after the election and handing over to ??? I'm not sure what the hell we'd do then.
They surely wouldn't announce it during a leadership election? They waited til after the locals before even saying there was an investigation.
That'd be awkward for us too. "Vote for our brilliant leadership to steer Britain through uncertain times! PS It might not be us but whoever the membership decide on if we resign."
Following on from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, the New York Times has printed a column trying to blame the US for the "ambiguous" war in Ukraine.
Fuck all of these apologists for Russia.
And to think how much time the likes of NYT banging about Trump / Russia interference in elections.....gone full circle and printing Russia propaganda.
The article in NYT is clearly marked "Opinion" and "Guest Essay". The role of the press is to further debate. Just because they print an article doesn't mean the entire newspaper agrees with every word.
You seem to forget not that long ago when they tried to print an opinion piece from a guest writer that the staff disgreed with...they lost their shit and demanded it being withdrawn immediately.
The reality is that even if we get to 54 there is no way at all we are currently going to get anywhere near 180 to vote him out, not least because no one has a scoobie as to what comes next. When Rishi was nailed on as his successor it might have been possible but the torpedoing of his own Chancellor makes Big Dog pretty much untouchable before an election.
The reason i disagree with you, once it gets to the vonc it changes the current question - rather than is Boris weak enough, his ratings bad enough, his crimes bad enough, his speech and commons performances bad enough, it becomes is he strong enough, his performances and record strong enough to expect a recovery. It swings round to needing Boris positives, reasons to believe, that he can turn round a losing position, reasons to believe it’s better to carry on with partygate, that’s far from over, stick with Boris bad ratings, that are truly bad, rather than twist on a fresh hand of cards.
Once it gets to the vonc the Boris team have to change their approach, fear won’t work if you are about to be out of power, they are the team that starts on zero needing to get to 180 by filling the electors with hope, positives, and reasons to believe in a fight back.
Anyone seriously thinking of running could always commission a poll for the Sundays of 2019 Tory deserters and whether removing Boris would make them reconsider........
No it doesn’t work like that Woolie. 🙂
In politics once someone is wearing a crown they look different, and are considered in a different way.
Politics is more professional than you give it credit for. This moment isn’t about listening to voters, but plotting the chess moves way ahead of the voters, which new King or Queen has that lustre wearing the crown you know the current wearer will never achieve from now.
This is why i'm not King but just a funny old cotter you see
What other part of this piece of realpolitik are you going to do via focus group? How many supporters to secretly gift Hunt to keep Gove out the last two? At what point to leak the Truss Xmas Party Photocopier Story? To secure Penny’s mounting support by offering her FO, HO or 11?
Don't buy this if there's a vote he'll win it. Why? Because. Deep down they know he's a dud. They always did. But he'd win them an election. Do they think that now? Maybe. But maybe not. And I don't buy this payroll vote either. There must be a hundred juniors and bag carriers looking at some of the idiots in Cabinet thinking. I could do that better. Only idiots who are self-aware won't be. And I don't buy the no successor either. Almost anyone. Almost. Would be an upgrade. It's a secret ballot. He has no faction, no friends, and no plan.
That's largely my view. But then I thunk back to GE2019, and remember the speech from the winning candidate in Blyth Valley - the chike of emotion when Boris was mentioned. I wonder whether that was typical of the new intake, and how much if that loyalty remains.
Exactly, he knew he owed his victory in large part to Boris. Would Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove as leader have seen him become the first Tory ever to win Blyth Valley? I doubt it
And if he wants to remain the MP for Blyth Valley he needs to vote to remove him.
Just realised something. The last election winner to be removed at the ballot box was John Major. Before that it was Ted Heath. That's once in 47 years.
Wilson and Attlee. 4 in nearly 80 years
Yep. And Wilson got two more goes. So I'm not entirely sure he counts the same.
True, yes. So defeated and gone are Attlee, Heath (after a 27 year sulk) and Major (to the Oval)
If we discount Churchill, Salisbury, Baldwin and Gladstone for the same reason as Wilson, then believe it or not the previous election winner sacked by the electorate who never returned to the premiership was Disraeli in 1880.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
Disraeli died as LOTO and fudnt get the chance to fight again so yeah, its back to Melbourne!
He had, however, announced in advance of his death that he would be resigning before the next election.
Ah, yes, ok thats a good point i was unaware of.
A party conclave asked him to remain as leader, and he replied thusly:
'The situation demands youth and energy. When they are found - and they shall be found - I shall take my bow.'
By which he really meant he hoped to remain leader long enough to remove Stafford Northcote as leader in the Commons and replace him with a duumvirate of Cranbrook and Salisbury.
But he didn't quite manage it. He needed twelve more months.
That said, Salisbury was the one who became PM in the end, not Northcote.
Comments
That's once in 47 years.
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1531627029334052864
https://imagen.research.google/
And yes, I did misunderstand you - what we've proposed are very similar systems it would seem.
There's no one else acceptable to all.
Because those boat people crossing the channel aren't actually planning on claiming asylum. On the contrary, their number one goal (nine times out of ten) is working in the informal economy in the UK; claiming asylum is just what they do if their boat is apprehended on the way over.
(But you're not the one advocating adopting those units wholesale - or rather retail.)
Sell:
Sunak
Gove
Hunt
Raab
Kwarteng
Buy:
Barclay
Patel
Wallance
Morduant
Big loss if one of my sells comes in; big profit if it's one of my buys; small profit the field.
a) When there's a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis, it would be destabilising to try to replace me and have a leadership election, so don't do it.
b) But if you do try to replace me, I'll call a GE, despite the destabilising impact during a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis.
I'm inclined to think the latter.
1. Poppadom or nan?
2. Korma or Masala?
3. Cobra, Tiger or Estrella?
4. By the way Angela, were you actually there or not?
5. Work or play?
That's it.
But it's a long, steep walk back up the hill. Better to find a boat on the beach and sleep it off.
I am hoping to do the Roseland Peninsula tomorrow, and Kynance Cove on Thursday. I think the kids will find both interesting. But we also need to balance this with finding time for just playing. And there are plenty of opportunities for this too - beaches and parks and so on.
But as you allude, the sheer density in West Cornwall of things to see and do is quite astounding.
Fair play to the bid team - they showed the judges Haworth, Saltaire, Bingley 5-rise, Ilkley Moor. Basically, kept them well away from the arse end of Bradford. And it worked.
Maybe while we are all soaking up the culture we'll forget that Northern Poorhouse Rail is completely bypassing the city?
Bradford. City of Culture, and a crap rail service.
It's the same with the Europe-wide competition, which contrary to the poster above, I think UK cities can still enter?
'https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1531565320569233408?s=20&t=QgXXcJx2aS6lmbQQqnkwoA
Edit - i apologise, also seabird shit
Let me share some quotes:
On Nov. 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
That charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked,” Mr. Guaino wrote. “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”
This is a faithful account of the war that President Vladimir Putin has claimed to be fighting. “There were constant supplies of the most modern military equipment,” Mr. Putin said at Russia’s annual Victory Parade on May 9, referring to the foreign arming of Ukraine. “The danger was growing every day.”
Whether he was right to worry about Russia’s security depends on one’s perspective. Western news reports tend to belittle him.
The rocky course of the war in Ukraine thus far has vindicated Mr. Putin’s diagnosis, if not his conduct.
Utter bullshit, of course.
The reality is that Ukraine was never going to attack a nuclear armed Russia. They never had any realistic hope of regaining Crimea, and were making little (if any) progress in the East of the country. The vast, vast majority of the modern military kit that has been sent, has been sent *because* Russia invaded.
It is risky to provoke a leadership candidate unless sure that your faction will win.
And before him it was Melbourne in 1841.
“Macron saw red because the spectacle offered around the Stade de France on May 28 was “pitiful”, “shameful”, “unworthy of France”, as he said in front of a few relatives.
https://twitter.com/davduf/status/1531731673515282433?s=21&t=BCmhI5lY5hdQjnCuinpZog
The argument that vindicating his 'diagnosis' is not doing so for his conduct is pretty ridiculous as well. If someone is arguing his pretexts are, in fact, justified ones, then it is arguing his actions are justified as well, otherwise it makes no sense.
Tugendhat Left v Harper right possible.
It is vanishingly rare. Being an "election winner" is actually far more of a booster for Big Dog than it at first appears.
Thinking outside the box now. If he did use an FPN on Starmer to call an election...
The obvious Labour candidate is one ACL Blair.
History is his friend here.
And of course, there is the fact that many politicians until the 1960s did ride out defeats, sometimes for strange reasons. Baldwin, for example, might have been ousted in 1930 had he not decided to stay on to spite Beaverbrook.
'The situation demands youth and energy. When they are found - and they shall be found - I shall take my bow.'
By which he really meant he hoped to remain leader long enough to remove Stafford Northcote as leader in the Commons and replace him with a duumvirate of Cranbrook and Salisbury.
But he didn't quite manage it. He needed twelve more months.
That said, Salisbury was the one who became PM in the end, not Northcote.